User login
Convalescent plasma actions spark trial recruitment concerns
The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.
In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.
At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.
“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”
About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”
But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.
“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”
Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.
When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.
The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
Hopeful, but a long way to go
Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.
“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.
Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.
Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.
Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”
But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”
Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.
Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.
The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.
Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.
In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.
At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.
“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”
About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”
But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.
“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”
Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.
When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.
The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
Hopeful, but a long way to go
Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.
“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.
Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.
Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.
Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”
But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”
Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.
Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.
The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.
Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.
In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.
At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.
“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”
About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”
But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.
“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”
Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.
When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.
The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
Hopeful, but a long way to go
Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.
“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.
Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.
Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.
Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”
But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”
Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.
Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.
The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.
Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prognosis for rural hospitals worsens with pandemic
Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.
After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.
“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”
Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.
It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”
One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.
Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.
The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.
Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.
“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.
Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.
“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.
Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.
Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.
For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.
“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.
There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.
“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”
Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.
In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.
Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.
“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”
Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.
“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.
After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.
“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”
Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.
It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”
One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.
Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.
The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.
Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.
“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.
Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.
“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.
Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.
Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.
For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.
“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.
There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.
“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”
Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.
In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.
Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.
“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”
Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.
“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.
After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.
“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”
Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.
It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”
One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.
Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.
Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.
The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.
Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.
“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.
Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.
“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.
Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.
Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.
For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.
“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.
There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.
“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”
Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.
In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.
Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.
“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”
Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.
“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
When viruses collide: Flu season during pandemic
The medical community is about to find out how prepared it is for the double whammy of influenza and COVID-19 that has been predicted for the fall of 2020. The complexities of diagnosis, management of vulnerable patients, and overflowing medical centers that have made the COVID-19 crisis so brutal may all be exacerbated by the arrival of seasonal influenza.
Lewis Jay Kaplan, MD, FCCP, a critical care surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has seen his share of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the surgical ICU that he oversees. He’s approaching the upcoming flu season, poised to collide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, ready to listen to each patient’s story to distinguish one from the other and determine treatment.
“The patients that have underlying comorbidities all have a story, and it’s up to you to figure out which chapter you’re in and how far along you happen to be,” he said. “It’s a very interesting approach to care, medical storytelling.”
With flu season closing in, pulmonologists are ruminating about how they’ll distinguish symptoms of COVID-19 and traditional influenza and how they’ll manage the most vulnerable patients, namely those with underlying respiratory disease and children. Influenza kills 12,000-61,000 people a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and results in 140,000-810,00 hospitalizations. Having a flu season in the midst of a pandemic of a disease with multiple overlapping symptoms threatens to overwhelm practitioners, hospitals, and the health system.
Dr. Kaplan said each patient’s story can point to the correct clinical approach. “Instead of just sharing data when you are on rounds, you’re really telling someone’s story.” It arises from a series of questions about how the disease has impacted them, specifics of their presentation, how their signs and symptoms differ from the usual, and how they responded to treatment. “It also helps you to then take what you’re doing, which can seem very, very complicated to individuals who are not medically sophisticated, and then help them to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing at this point.”
That can help get through to a patient with respiratory disease who insists he or she has or doesn’t have COVID-19 rather than the flu. “They form a different group that brings with them different fears and concerns, and you have to help them navigate that, too: all of this data and your decision-making around testing and admissions, and what you can omit doing and what you must do help them to navigate their own story,” Dr. Kaplan said.
Benjamin D. Singer, MD, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, authored an editorial in Science Advances that addressed four factors that will determine the scope of flu spread in the upcoming season: rate of transmission; vaccination rates; coinfection rates; and health disparities in minority populations, which are prone to higher rates of flu as well as COVID-19.
Flu vaccine ‘extra important’
The convergence of COVID-19 and influenza has the potential to overwhelm the health system, said Daniel A. Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s in Boston. He coauthored a JAMA Insights clinical update on flu season during the COVID-19 pandemic that lists distinguishing and overlapping signs and symptoms of the two diseases.
The flu vaccine, he said, is “extra important this year,” especially in patients with existing respiratory disease, but COVID-19 has thrown up barriers to vaccination. Telemedicine has supplanted office visits. “People may miss that easy-touch opportunity to get the flu vaccine, so we have to be creative about making the flu vaccine highly accessible, maybe in nontraditional ways,” Dr. Solomon said. Some ideas he offered are pop-up vaccine fairs at schools and churches.
But just as COVID-19 may hinder flu vaccines, it may also be helping to mitigate flu transmission. “The interesting thing about transmission of the flu is that it’s transmitted the same way COVID is, so if we actually know how to decrease transmission of COVID, which we do – we’ve done it – we can actually decrease transmission of influenza as well,” Dr. Solomon said. Studies out of Hong Kong and Japan have reported a reduction in influenza cases during COVID-19 outbreaks in those places (Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e279-88; JAMA. 2020;323:1969-71).
Risks of coinfection
About one in four COVID-19 patients have been diagnosed with an additional respiratory infection, including influenza (JAMA. 2020:323:2085-6). Pulmonologists must keep that in mind when managing COVID-19 suspects, said Dr. Singer.
“While it is true that most of the time COVID-19 travels alone, we have numerous examples in the literature and in our own experience that COVID-19 is accompanied by either another virus or another bacterial infection, including influenza,” Dr. Singer said. “The distinction is important. One is just for diagnostic reasons and public reporting reasons, but also because flu and COVID-19 have different requirements for how you care for patients in terms of the health system.”
Clinical suspicion for coinfection should remain high if the community spread of both COVID-19 and influenza is high, said Megan Conroy, MD, chief pulmonary and critical care fellow at Ohio State University, Columbus. “As the coronavirus first took hold in the United States in March 2020, we were at the tail end of influenza season, so it’s hard to predict what the upcoming influenza season will really look like with regards to coinfection.”
Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu
Multiple signs and symptoms between COVID-19 and the flu overlap. They include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, cough, and fatigue. Nasal congestion and sore throat are characteristic of the flu; shortness of breath and loss of the sense of smell have been widely reported in COVID-19. “While many upper respiratory infections can result in loss of smell, this may be more prevalent in COVID-19,” Dr. Conroy said. Other symptoms unique to COVID-19 are GI symptoms such as diarrhea and skin rashes such as acral ischemia.
Testing, however, is the cornerstone of the differential diagnosis. “You can’t confidently distinguish between them on symptoms alone,” Dr. Conroy added.
“I think the challenge we’ll face as clinicians, is caring for people with nonspecific symptoms of a respiratory viral illness, especially in the early phase of the illness,” said Dr. Solomon.
But even after that, symptoms can be difficult to distinguish.
“Later in the illness, COVID is more associated with a hypercoagulable state,” he said. “It is more associated with viral pneumonia on chest imaging, like the diffuse ground-glass infiltrates that we’ve all gotten used to seeing – but flu can do both of those things as well. So, without a test, it’s impossible to distinguish between the two infections in the clinic.”
But testing can have its shortcomings when flu season clashes with the COVID-19 pandemic. “Getting the test is not the same as getting the test results,” Dr. Solomon added. “Though a lot of people can get a test, if it takes 7 or 8 days to get the test result back, the result is useless.”
Widespread, rapid testing also depends on having adequate supplies of viral media transport and swabs. “I think that this is what we should be focusing on now: scaling up access to rapid turnaround testing,” he said. Distinguishing between the two is also important to preserve hospital resources. COVID-19 has more rigorous standards than flu for personal protective equipment and isolation of patients within the hospital.
Having chronic lung disease isn’t necessarily a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 or the flu, or both, Dr. Solomon said. “It’s a risk factor for having severe disease.” Again, he noted that flu vaccines are still necessary in these patients, as well as patients of advanced age and underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
In managing children, it’s important to keep in mind that they communicate differently about their illnesses than adults, said Dr. Kaplan. “They may not have the words to tell you the same kind of thing that the adult tells you.” That’s where family members can help to flesh out the history. “They may present with an initially much milder form, if you will, where they’re not as critical up front, but then that small proportion of them comes back with the multi-inflammatory syndrome and then they are profoundly ill.”
Younger people make up a larger share of COVID-19 patients now, compared with the initial wave that hit the Northeast in the spring, Dr. Kaplan said. “We don’t know if that’s because the virus is a little different or the people that are getting sick are a little bit different.”
The COVID-19 strain now emerging may be less virulent than the strain that hit in early spring, he said. “That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still profoundly critical ill people with COVID of many different age ranges, that is true, but there are a lot of people that we now see will test positive, but aren’t really as profoundly ill as when it first landed here in the United States.”
That may be somewhat welcome as flu season arrives.
The physicians interviewed have no relevant disclosures.
The medical community is about to find out how prepared it is for the double whammy of influenza and COVID-19 that has been predicted for the fall of 2020. The complexities of diagnosis, management of vulnerable patients, and overflowing medical centers that have made the COVID-19 crisis so brutal may all be exacerbated by the arrival of seasonal influenza.
Lewis Jay Kaplan, MD, FCCP, a critical care surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has seen his share of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the surgical ICU that he oversees. He’s approaching the upcoming flu season, poised to collide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, ready to listen to each patient’s story to distinguish one from the other and determine treatment.
“The patients that have underlying comorbidities all have a story, and it’s up to you to figure out which chapter you’re in and how far along you happen to be,” he said. “It’s a very interesting approach to care, medical storytelling.”
With flu season closing in, pulmonologists are ruminating about how they’ll distinguish symptoms of COVID-19 and traditional influenza and how they’ll manage the most vulnerable patients, namely those with underlying respiratory disease and children. Influenza kills 12,000-61,000 people a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and results in 140,000-810,00 hospitalizations. Having a flu season in the midst of a pandemic of a disease with multiple overlapping symptoms threatens to overwhelm practitioners, hospitals, and the health system.
Dr. Kaplan said each patient’s story can point to the correct clinical approach. “Instead of just sharing data when you are on rounds, you’re really telling someone’s story.” It arises from a series of questions about how the disease has impacted them, specifics of their presentation, how their signs and symptoms differ from the usual, and how they responded to treatment. “It also helps you to then take what you’re doing, which can seem very, very complicated to individuals who are not medically sophisticated, and then help them to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing at this point.”
That can help get through to a patient with respiratory disease who insists he or she has or doesn’t have COVID-19 rather than the flu. “They form a different group that brings with them different fears and concerns, and you have to help them navigate that, too: all of this data and your decision-making around testing and admissions, and what you can omit doing and what you must do help them to navigate their own story,” Dr. Kaplan said.
Benjamin D. Singer, MD, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, authored an editorial in Science Advances that addressed four factors that will determine the scope of flu spread in the upcoming season: rate of transmission; vaccination rates; coinfection rates; and health disparities in minority populations, which are prone to higher rates of flu as well as COVID-19.
Flu vaccine ‘extra important’
The convergence of COVID-19 and influenza has the potential to overwhelm the health system, said Daniel A. Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s in Boston. He coauthored a JAMA Insights clinical update on flu season during the COVID-19 pandemic that lists distinguishing and overlapping signs and symptoms of the two diseases.
The flu vaccine, he said, is “extra important this year,” especially in patients with existing respiratory disease, but COVID-19 has thrown up barriers to vaccination. Telemedicine has supplanted office visits. “People may miss that easy-touch opportunity to get the flu vaccine, so we have to be creative about making the flu vaccine highly accessible, maybe in nontraditional ways,” Dr. Solomon said. Some ideas he offered are pop-up vaccine fairs at schools and churches.
But just as COVID-19 may hinder flu vaccines, it may also be helping to mitigate flu transmission. “The interesting thing about transmission of the flu is that it’s transmitted the same way COVID is, so if we actually know how to decrease transmission of COVID, which we do – we’ve done it – we can actually decrease transmission of influenza as well,” Dr. Solomon said. Studies out of Hong Kong and Japan have reported a reduction in influenza cases during COVID-19 outbreaks in those places (Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e279-88; JAMA. 2020;323:1969-71).
Risks of coinfection
About one in four COVID-19 patients have been diagnosed with an additional respiratory infection, including influenza (JAMA. 2020:323:2085-6). Pulmonologists must keep that in mind when managing COVID-19 suspects, said Dr. Singer.
“While it is true that most of the time COVID-19 travels alone, we have numerous examples in the literature and in our own experience that COVID-19 is accompanied by either another virus or another bacterial infection, including influenza,” Dr. Singer said. “The distinction is important. One is just for diagnostic reasons and public reporting reasons, but also because flu and COVID-19 have different requirements for how you care for patients in terms of the health system.”
Clinical suspicion for coinfection should remain high if the community spread of both COVID-19 and influenza is high, said Megan Conroy, MD, chief pulmonary and critical care fellow at Ohio State University, Columbus. “As the coronavirus first took hold in the United States in March 2020, we were at the tail end of influenza season, so it’s hard to predict what the upcoming influenza season will really look like with regards to coinfection.”
Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu
Multiple signs and symptoms between COVID-19 and the flu overlap. They include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, cough, and fatigue. Nasal congestion and sore throat are characteristic of the flu; shortness of breath and loss of the sense of smell have been widely reported in COVID-19. “While many upper respiratory infections can result in loss of smell, this may be more prevalent in COVID-19,” Dr. Conroy said. Other symptoms unique to COVID-19 are GI symptoms such as diarrhea and skin rashes such as acral ischemia.
Testing, however, is the cornerstone of the differential diagnosis. “You can’t confidently distinguish between them on symptoms alone,” Dr. Conroy added.
“I think the challenge we’ll face as clinicians, is caring for people with nonspecific symptoms of a respiratory viral illness, especially in the early phase of the illness,” said Dr. Solomon.
But even after that, symptoms can be difficult to distinguish.
“Later in the illness, COVID is more associated with a hypercoagulable state,” he said. “It is more associated with viral pneumonia on chest imaging, like the diffuse ground-glass infiltrates that we’ve all gotten used to seeing – but flu can do both of those things as well. So, without a test, it’s impossible to distinguish between the two infections in the clinic.”
But testing can have its shortcomings when flu season clashes with the COVID-19 pandemic. “Getting the test is not the same as getting the test results,” Dr. Solomon added. “Though a lot of people can get a test, if it takes 7 or 8 days to get the test result back, the result is useless.”
Widespread, rapid testing also depends on having adequate supplies of viral media transport and swabs. “I think that this is what we should be focusing on now: scaling up access to rapid turnaround testing,” he said. Distinguishing between the two is also important to preserve hospital resources. COVID-19 has more rigorous standards than flu for personal protective equipment and isolation of patients within the hospital.
Having chronic lung disease isn’t necessarily a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 or the flu, or both, Dr. Solomon said. “It’s a risk factor for having severe disease.” Again, he noted that flu vaccines are still necessary in these patients, as well as patients of advanced age and underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
In managing children, it’s important to keep in mind that they communicate differently about their illnesses than adults, said Dr. Kaplan. “They may not have the words to tell you the same kind of thing that the adult tells you.” That’s where family members can help to flesh out the history. “They may present with an initially much milder form, if you will, where they’re not as critical up front, but then that small proportion of them comes back with the multi-inflammatory syndrome and then they are profoundly ill.”
Younger people make up a larger share of COVID-19 patients now, compared with the initial wave that hit the Northeast in the spring, Dr. Kaplan said. “We don’t know if that’s because the virus is a little different or the people that are getting sick are a little bit different.”
The COVID-19 strain now emerging may be less virulent than the strain that hit in early spring, he said. “That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still profoundly critical ill people with COVID of many different age ranges, that is true, but there are a lot of people that we now see will test positive, but aren’t really as profoundly ill as when it first landed here in the United States.”
That may be somewhat welcome as flu season arrives.
The physicians interviewed have no relevant disclosures.
The medical community is about to find out how prepared it is for the double whammy of influenza and COVID-19 that has been predicted for the fall of 2020. The complexities of diagnosis, management of vulnerable patients, and overflowing medical centers that have made the COVID-19 crisis so brutal may all be exacerbated by the arrival of seasonal influenza.
Lewis Jay Kaplan, MD, FCCP, a critical care surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has seen his share of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the surgical ICU that he oversees. He’s approaching the upcoming flu season, poised to collide with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, ready to listen to each patient’s story to distinguish one from the other and determine treatment.
“The patients that have underlying comorbidities all have a story, and it’s up to you to figure out which chapter you’re in and how far along you happen to be,” he said. “It’s a very interesting approach to care, medical storytelling.”
With flu season closing in, pulmonologists are ruminating about how they’ll distinguish symptoms of COVID-19 and traditional influenza and how they’ll manage the most vulnerable patients, namely those with underlying respiratory disease and children. Influenza kills 12,000-61,000 people a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, and results in 140,000-810,00 hospitalizations. Having a flu season in the midst of a pandemic of a disease with multiple overlapping symptoms threatens to overwhelm practitioners, hospitals, and the health system.
Dr. Kaplan said each patient’s story can point to the correct clinical approach. “Instead of just sharing data when you are on rounds, you’re really telling someone’s story.” It arises from a series of questions about how the disease has impacted them, specifics of their presentation, how their signs and symptoms differ from the usual, and how they responded to treatment. “It also helps you to then take what you’re doing, which can seem very, very complicated to individuals who are not medically sophisticated, and then help them to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing at this point.”
That can help get through to a patient with respiratory disease who insists he or she has or doesn’t have COVID-19 rather than the flu. “They form a different group that brings with them different fears and concerns, and you have to help them navigate that, too: all of this data and your decision-making around testing and admissions, and what you can omit doing and what you must do help them to navigate their own story,” Dr. Kaplan said.
Benjamin D. Singer, MD, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, authored an editorial in Science Advances that addressed four factors that will determine the scope of flu spread in the upcoming season: rate of transmission; vaccination rates; coinfection rates; and health disparities in minority populations, which are prone to higher rates of flu as well as COVID-19.
Flu vaccine ‘extra important’
The convergence of COVID-19 and influenza has the potential to overwhelm the health system, said Daniel A. Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s in Boston. He coauthored a JAMA Insights clinical update on flu season during the COVID-19 pandemic that lists distinguishing and overlapping signs and symptoms of the two diseases.
The flu vaccine, he said, is “extra important this year,” especially in patients with existing respiratory disease, but COVID-19 has thrown up barriers to vaccination. Telemedicine has supplanted office visits. “People may miss that easy-touch opportunity to get the flu vaccine, so we have to be creative about making the flu vaccine highly accessible, maybe in nontraditional ways,” Dr. Solomon said. Some ideas he offered are pop-up vaccine fairs at schools and churches.
But just as COVID-19 may hinder flu vaccines, it may also be helping to mitigate flu transmission. “The interesting thing about transmission of the flu is that it’s transmitted the same way COVID is, so if we actually know how to decrease transmission of COVID, which we do – we’ve done it – we can actually decrease transmission of influenza as well,” Dr. Solomon said. Studies out of Hong Kong and Japan have reported a reduction in influenza cases during COVID-19 outbreaks in those places (Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e279-88; JAMA. 2020;323:1969-71).
Risks of coinfection
About one in four COVID-19 patients have been diagnosed with an additional respiratory infection, including influenza (JAMA. 2020:323:2085-6). Pulmonologists must keep that in mind when managing COVID-19 suspects, said Dr. Singer.
“While it is true that most of the time COVID-19 travels alone, we have numerous examples in the literature and in our own experience that COVID-19 is accompanied by either another virus or another bacterial infection, including influenza,” Dr. Singer said. “The distinction is important. One is just for diagnostic reasons and public reporting reasons, but also because flu and COVID-19 have different requirements for how you care for patients in terms of the health system.”
Clinical suspicion for coinfection should remain high if the community spread of both COVID-19 and influenza is high, said Megan Conroy, MD, chief pulmonary and critical care fellow at Ohio State University, Columbus. “As the coronavirus first took hold in the United States in March 2020, we were at the tail end of influenza season, so it’s hard to predict what the upcoming influenza season will really look like with regards to coinfection.”
Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu
Multiple signs and symptoms between COVID-19 and the flu overlap. They include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, cough, and fatigue. Nasal congestion and sore throat are characteristic of the flu; shortness of breath and loss of the sense of smell have been widely reported in COVID-19. “While many upper respiratory infections can result in loss of smell, this may be more prevalent in COVID-19,” Dr. Conroy said. Other symptoms unique to COVID-19 are GI symptoms such as diarrhea and skin rashes such as acral ischemia.
Testing, however, is the cornerstone of the differential diagnosis. “You can’t confidently distinguish between them on symptoms alone,” Dr. Conroy added.
“I think the challenge we’ll face as clinicians, is caring for people with nonspecific symptoms of a respiratory viral illness, especially in the early phase of the illness,” said Dr. Solomon.
But even after that, symptoms can be difficult to distinguish.
“Later in the illness, COVID is more associated with a hypercoagulable state,” he said. “It is more associated with viral pneumonia on chest imaging, like the diffuse ground-glass infiltrates that we’ve all gotten used to seeing – but flu can do both of those things as well. So, without a test, it’s impossible to distinguish between the two infections in the clinic.”
But testing can have its shortcomings when flu season clashes with the COVID-19 pandemic. “Getting the test is not the same as getting the test results,” Dr. Solomon added. “Though a lot of people can get a test, if it takes 7 or 8 days to get the test result back, the result is useless.”
Widespread, rapid testing also depends on having adequate supplies of viral media transport and swabs. “I think that this is what we should be focusing on now: scaling up access to rapid turnaround testing,” he said. Distinguishing between the two is also important to preserve hospital resources. COVID-19 has more rigorous standards than flu for personal protective equipment and isolation of patients within the hospital.
Having chronic lung disease isn’t necessarily a risk factor for contracting COVID-19 or the flu, or both, Dr. Solomon said. “It’s a risk factor for having severe disease.” Again, he noted that flu vaccines are still necessary in these patients, as well as patients of advanced age and underlying medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
In managing children, it’s important to keep in mind that they communicate differently about their illnesses than adults, said Dr. Kaplan. “They may not have the words to tell you the same kind of thing that the adult tells you.” That’s where family members can help to flesh out the history. “They may present with an initially much milder form, if you will, where they’re not as critical up front, but then that small proportion of them comes back with the multi-inflammatory syndrome and then they are profoundly ill.”
Younger people make up a larger share of COVID-19 patients now, compared with the initial wave that hit the Northeast in the spring, Dr. Kaplan said. “We don’t know if that’s because the virus is a little different or the people that are getting sick are a little bit different.”
The COVID-19 strain now emerging may be less virulent than the strain that hit in early spring, he said. “That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still profoundly critical ill people with COVID of many different age ranges, that is true, but there are a lot of people that we now see will test positive, but aren’t really as profoundly ill as when it first landed here in the United States.”
That may be somewhat welcome as flu season arrives.
The physicians interviewed have no relevant disclosures.
As COVID-19 cases increase in children, deaths remain low
according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The cumulative number of pediatric cases reported up to that date was 442,785, or 9.3% of the total COVID-19 case load of more than 4.76 million among all ages. There have been only 92 pediatric deaths, however, which works out to just 0.06% of the 154,279 reported for all ages, the AAP and the CHA said Aug. 24 in their most recent update.
Child hospitalizations also were on the low side, representing 1.7% (4,062) of the cumulative total of 234,810 admissions among all ages as of Aug. 20, based on data from 21 states and New York City.
Nationally, the cumulative number of reported child cases is now up to 583 per 100,000 children, and that figure covers 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
There is some disagreement among the states, though, about the definition of “child.” Most states use an age range of 0-17, 0-18, or 0-19, but Florida and Utah go with a range of 0-14 years while South Carolina and Tennessee consider humans aged 0-20 years to be children. Other data limitations involve Texas, which has reported age distribution for only 8% of all cases, and New York, which is not reporting the age distribution of statewide cases, the AAP/CHA report noted.
The definition of child isn’t the only thing that varies between the states. The cumulative case rate for Tennessee, the highest in the country at 1,315 per 100,000 children, is 10 times that of Vermont, which is the lowest at 131 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA said. Vermont reports child COVID-19 cases using an age range of 0-19 years.
The other states with rates over 1,000 cases per 100,000 children are Arizona (1,300), which had the highest rate a week ago; South Carolina (1,214); Louisiana (1,127); Mississippi (1,120); and Nevada (1,068). Those with rates below 200 cases per 100,000 children are Maine (150), New Hampshire (175), and Hawaii (188), according to this week’s report.
according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The cumulative number of pediatric cases reported up to that date was 442,785, or 9.3% of the total COVID-19 case load of more than 4.76 million among all ages. There have been only 92 pediatric deaths, however, which works out to just 0.06% of the 154,279 reported for all ages, the AAP and the CHA said Aug. 24 in their most recent update.
Child hospitalizations also were on the low side, representing 1.7% (4,062) of the cumulative total of 234,810 admissions among all ages as of Aug. 20, based on data from 21 states and New York City.
Nationally, the cumulative number of reported child cases is now up to 583 per 100,000 children, and that figure covers 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
There is some disagreement among the states, though, about the definition of “child.” Most states use an age range of 0-17, 0-18, or 0-19, but Florida and Utah go with a range of 0-14 years while South Carolina and Tennessee consider humans aged 0-20 years to be children. Other data limitations involve Texas, which has reported age distribution for only 8% of all cases, and New York, which is not reporting the age distribution of statewide cases, the AAP/CHA report noted.
The definition of child isn’t the only thing that varies between the states. The cumulative case rate for Tennessee, the highest in the country at 1,315 per 100,000 children, is 10 times that of Vermont, which is the lowest at 131 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA said. Vermont reports child COVID-19 cases using an age range of 0-19 years.
The other states with rates over 1,000 cases per 100,000 children are Arizona (1,300), which had the highest rate a week ago; South Carolina (1,214); Louisiana (1,127); Mississippi (1,120); and Nevada (1,068). Those with rates below 200 cases per 100,000 children are Maine (150), New Hampshire (175), and Hawaii (188), according to this week’s report.
according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The cumulative number of pediatric cases reported up to that date was 442,785, or 9.3% of the total COVID-19 case load of more than 4.76 million among all ages. There have been only 92 pediatric deaths, however, which works out to just 0.06% of the 154,279 reported for all ages, the AAP and the CHA said Aug. 24 in their most recent update.
Child hospitalizations also were on the low side, representing 1.7% (4,062) of the cumulative total of 234,810 admissions among all ages as of Aug. 20, based on data from 21 states and New York City.
Nationally, the cumulative number of reported child cases is now up to 583 per 100,000 children, and that figure covers 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
There is some disagreement among the states, though, about the definition of “child.” Most states use an age range of 0-17, 0-18, or 0-19, but Florida and Utah go with a range of 0-14 years while South Carolina and Tennessee consider humans aged 0-20 years to be children. Other data limitations involve Texas, which has reported age distribution for only 8% of all cases, and New York, which is not reporting the age distribution of statewide cases, the AAP/CHA report noted.
The definition of child isn’t the only thing that varies between the states. The cumulative case rate for Tennessee, the highest in the country at 1,315 per 100,000 children, is 10 times that of Vermont, which is the lowest at 131 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA said. Vermont reports child COVID-19 cases using an age range of 0-19 years.
The other states with rates over 1,000 cases per 100,000 children are Arizona (1,300), which had the highest rate a week ago; South Carolina (1,214); Louisiana (1,127); Mississippi (1,120); and Nevada (1,068). Those with rates below 200 cases per 100,000 children are Maine (150), New Hampshire (175), and Hawaii (188), according to this week’s report.
First evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in heart cells
SARS-CoV-2 has been found in cardiac tissue of a child from Brazil with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 who presented with myocarditis and died of heart failure.
It’s believed to be the first evidence of direct infection of heart muscle cells by the virus; viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.
The case was described in a report published online August 20 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.
“The presence of the virus in various cell types of cardiac tissue, as evidenced by electron microscopy, shows that myocarditis in this case is likely a direct inflammatory response to the virus infection in the heart,” first author Marisa Dolhnikoff, MD, department of pathology, University of São Paulo, said in an interview.
There have been previous reports in adults with COVID-19 of both SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral particles by electron microscopy in cardiac tissue from endomyocardial specimens, the researchers noted. One of these reports, published in April by Tavazzi and colleagues, “detected viral particles in cardiac macrophages in an adult patient with acute cardiac injury associated with COVID-19; no viral particles were seen in cardiomyocytes or endothelial cells.
“Our case report is the first to our knowledge to document the presence of viral particles in the cardiac tissue of a child affected by MIS-C,” they added. “Moreover, viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.”
‘Concerning’ case report
“This is a concerning report as it shows for the first time that the virus can actually invade the heart muscle cells themselves,” C. Michael Gibson, MD, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston, said in an interview.
“Previous reports of COVID-19 and the heart found that the virus was in the area outside the heart muscle cells. We do not know yet the relative contribution of the inflammatory cells invading the heart, the release of blood-borne inflammatory mediators, and the virus inside the heart muscle cells themselves to heart damage,” Dr. Gibson said.
The patient was a previously healthy 11-year-old girl of African descent with MIS-C related to COVID-19. She developed cardiac failure and died after 1 day in the hospital, despite aggressive treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on a postmortem nasopharyngeal swab and in cardiac and pulmonary tissues by RT-PCR.
Postmortem ultrasound examination of the heart showed a “hyperechogenic and diffusely thickened endocardium (mean thickness, 10 mm), a thickened myocardium (18 mm thick in the left ventricle), and a small pericardial effusion,” Dr. Dolhnikoff and colleagues reported.
Histopathologic exam revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, and endocarditis characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells. Inflammation was mainly interstitial and perivascular, associated with foci of cardiomyocyte necrosis and was mainly composed of CD68+ macrophages, a few CD45+ lymphocytes, and a few neutrophils and eosinophils.
Electron microscopy of cardiac tissue revealed spherical viral particles in shape and size consistent with the Coronaviridae family in the extracellular compartment and within cardiomyocytes, capillary endothelial cells, endocardium endothelial cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and fibroblasts.
Microthrombi in the pulmonary arterioles and renal glomerular capillaries were also seen at autopsy. SARS-CoV-2–associated pneumonia was mild.
Lymphoid depletion and signs of hemophagocytosis were observed in the spleen and lymph nodes. Acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys and hepatic centrilobular necrosis, secondary to shock, were also seen. Brain tissue showed microglial reactivity.
“Fortunately, MIS-C is a rare event and, although it can be severe and life threatening, most children recover,” Dr. Dolhnikoff commented.
“This case report comes at a time when the scientific community around the world calls attention to MIS-C and the need for it to be quickly recognized and treated by the pediatric community. Evidence of a direct relation between the virus and myocarditis confirms that MIS-C is one of the possible forms of presentation of COVID-19 and that the heart may be the target organ. It also alerts clinicians to possible cardiac sequelae in these children,” she added.
Experts weigh in
Scott Aydin, MD, medical director of pediatric cardiac intensive care, Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, said that this case report is “unfortunately not all that surprising.
“Since the initial presentations of MIS-C several months ago, we have suspected mechanisms of direct and indirect injury to the myocardium. This important work is just the next step in further understanding the mechanisms of how COVID-19 creates havoc in the human body and the choices of possible therapies we have to treat children with COVID-19 and MIS-C,” said Dr. Aydin, who was not involved with the case report.
Anish Koka, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Philadelphia, noted that, in these cases, endomyocardial biopsy is “rarely done because it is fairly invasive, but even when it has been done, the pathologic findings are of widespread inflammation rather than virus-induced cell necrosis.”
“While reports like this are sure to spawn viral tweets, it’s vital to understand that it’s not unusual to find widespread organ dissemination of virus in very sick patients. This does not mean that the virus is causing dysfunction of the organ it happens to be found in,” Dr. Koka said in an interview.
He noted that, in the case of the young girl who died, it took high PCR-cycle threshold values to isolate virus from the lung and heart samples.
“This means there was a low viral load in both organs, supporting the theory of SARS-CoV-2 as a potential trigger of a widespread inflammatory response that results in organ damage, rather than the virus itself infecting and destroying organs,” said Dr. Koka, who was also not associated with the case report.
This research had no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Aydin disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koka disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Jardiance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SARS-CoV-2 has been found in cardiac tissue of a child from Brazil with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 who presented with myocarditis and died of heart failure.
It’s believed to be the first evidence of direct infection of heart muscle cells by the virus; viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.
The case was described in a report published online August 20 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.
“The presence of the virus in various cell types of cardiac tissue, as evidenced by electron microscopy, shows that myocarditis in this case is likely a direct inflammatory response to the virus infection in the heart,” first author Marisa Dolhnikoff, MD, department of pathology, University of São Paulo, said in an interview.
There have been previous reports in adults with COVID-19 of both SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral particles by electron microscopy in cardiac tissue from endomyocardial specimens, the researchers noted. One of these reports, published in April by Tavazzi and colleagues, “detected viral particles in cardiac macrophages in an adult patient with acute cardiac injury associated with COVID-19; no viral particles were seen in cardiomyocytes or endothelial cells.
“Our case report is the first to our knowledge to document the presence of viral particles in the cardiac tissue of a child affected by MIS-C,” they added. “Moreover, viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.”
‘Concerning’ case report
“This is a concerning report as it shows for the first time that the virus can actually invade the heart muscle cells themselves,” C. Michael Gibson, MD, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston, said in an interview.
“Previous reports of COVID-19 and the heart found that the virus was in the area outside the heart muscle cells. We do not know yet the relative contribution of the inflammatory cells invading the heart, the release of blood-borne inflammatory mediators, and the virus inside the heart muscle cells themselves to heart damage,” Dr. Gibson said.
The patient was a previously healthy 11-year-old girl of African descent with MIS-C related to COVID-19. She developed cardiac failure and died after 1 day in the hospital, despite aggressive treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on a postmortem nasopharyngeal swab and in cardiac and pulmonary tissues by RT-PCR.
Postmortem ultrasound examination of the heart showed a “hyperechogenic and diffusely thickened endocardium (mean thickness, 10 mm), a thickened myocardium (18 mm thick in the left ventricle), and a small pericardial effusion,” Dr. Dolhnikoff and colleagues reported.
Histopathologic exam revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, and endocarditis characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells. Inflammation was mainly interstitial and perivascular, associated with foci of cardiomyocyte necrosis and was mainly composed of CD68+ macrophages, a few CD45+ lymphocytes, and a few neutrophils and eosinophils.
Electron microscopy of cardiac tissue revealed spherical viral particles in shape and size consistent with the Coronaviridae family in the extracellular compartment and within cardiomyocytes, capillary endothelial cells, endocardium endothelial cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and fibroblasts.
Microthrombi in the pulmonary arterioles and renal glomerular capillaries were also seen at autopsy. SARS-CoV-2–associated pneumonia was mild.
Lymphoid depletion and signs of hemophagocytosis were observed in the spleen and lymph nodes. Acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys and hepatic centrilobular necrosis, secondary to shock, were also seen. Brain tissue showed microglial reactivity.
“Fortunately, MIS-C is a rare event and, although it can be severe and life threatening, most children recover,” Dr. Dolhnikoff commented.
“This case report comes at a time when the scientific community around the world calls attention to MIS-C and the need for it to be quickly recognized and treated by the pediatric community. Evidence of a direct relation between the virus and myocarditis confirms that MIS-C is one of the possible forms of presentation of COVID-19 and that the heart may be the target organ. It also alerts clinicians to possible cardiac sequelae in these children,” she added.
Experts weigh in
Scott Aydin, MD, medical director of pediatric cardiac intensive care, Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, said that this case report is “unfortunately not all that surprising.
“Since the initial presentations of MIS-C several months ago, we have suspected mechanisms of direct and indirect injury to the myocardium. This important work is just the next step in further understanding the mechanisms of how COVID-19 creates havoc in the human body and the choices of possible therapies we have to treat children with COVID-19 and MIS-C,” said Dr. Aydin, who was not involved with the case report.
Anish Koka, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Philadelphia, noted that, in these cases, endomyocardial biopsy is “rarely done because it is fairly invasive, but even when it has been done, the pathologic findings are of widespread inflammation rather than virus-induced cell necrosis.”
“While reports like this are sure to spawn viral tweets, it’s vital to understand that it’s not unusual to find widespread organ dissemination of virus in very sick patients. This does not mean that the virus is causing dysfunction of the organ it happens to be found in,” Dr. Koka said in an interview.
He noted that, in the case of the young girl who died, it took high PCR-cycle threshold values to isolate virus from the lung and heart samples.
“This means there was a low viral load in both organs, supporting the theory of SARS-CoV-2 as a potential trigger of a widespread inflammatory response that results in organ damage, rather than the virus itself infecting and destroying organs,” said Dr. Koka, who was also not associated with the case report.
This research had no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Aydin disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koka disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Jardiance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SARS-CoV-2 has been found in cardiac tissue of a child from Brazil with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 who presented with myocarditis and died of heart failure.
It’s believed to be the first evidence of direct infection of heart muscle cells by the virus; viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.
The case was described in a report published online August 20 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.
“The presence of the virus in various cell types of cardiac tissue, as evidenced by electron microscopy, shows that myocarditis in this case is likely a direct inflammatory response to the virus infection in the heart,” first author Marisa Dolhnikoff, MD, department of pathology, University of São Paulo, said in an interview.
There have been previous reports in adults with COVID-19 of both SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral particles by electron microscopy in cardiac tissue from endomyocardial specimens, the researchers noted. One of these reports, published in April by Tavazzi and colleagues, “detected viral particles in cardiac macrophages in an adult patient with acute cardiac injury associated with COVID-19; no viral particles were seen in cardiomyocytes or endothelial cells.
“Our case report is the first to our knowledge to document the presence of viral particles in the cardiac tissue of a child affected by MIS-C,” they added. “Moreover, viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.”
‘Concerning’ case report
“This is a concerning report as it shows for the first time that the virus can actually invade the heart muscle cells themselves,” C. Michael Gibson, MD, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston, said in an interview.
“Previous reports of COVID-19 and the heart found that the virus was in the area outside the heart muscle cells. We do not know yet the relative contribution of the inflammatory cells invading the heart, the release of blood-borne inflammatory mediators, and the virus inside the heart muscle cells themselves to heart damage,” Dr. Gibson said.
The patient was a previously healthy 11-year-old girl of African descent with MIS-C related to COVID-19. She developed cardiac failure and died after 1 day in the hospital, despite aggressive treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on a postmortem nasopharyngeal swab and in cardiac and pulmonary tissues by RT-PCR.
Postmortem ultrasound examination of the heart showed a “hyperechogenic and diffusely thickened endocardium (mean thickness, 10 mm), a thickened myocardium (18 mm thick in the left ventricle), and a small pericardial effusion,” Dr. Dolhnikoff and colleagues reported.
Histopathologic exam revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, and endocarditis characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells. Inflammation was mainly interstitial and perivascular, associated with foci of cardiomyocyte necrosis and was mainly composed of CD68+ macrophages, a few CD45+ lymphocytes, and a few neutrophils and eosinophils.
Electron microscopy of cardiac tissue revealed spherical viral particles in shape and size consistent with the Coronaviridae family in the extracellular compartment and within cardiomyocytes, capillary endothelial cells, endocardium endothelial cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and fibroblasts.
Microthrombi in the pulmonary arterioles and renal glomerular capillaries were also seen at autopsy. SARS-CoV-2–associated pneumonia was mild.
Lymphoid depletion and signs of hemophagocytosis were observed in the spleen and lymph nodes. Acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys and hepatic centrilobular necrosis, secondary to shock, were also seen. Brain tissue showed microglial reactivity.
“Fortunately, MIS-C is a rare event and, although it can be severe and life threatening, most children recover,” Dr. Dolhnikoff commented.
“This case report comes at a time when the scientific community around the world calls attention to MIS-C and the need for it to be quickly recognized and treated by the pediatric community. Evidence of a direct relation between the virus and myocarditis confirms that MIS-C is one of the possible forms of presentation of COVID-19 and that the heart may be the target organ. It also alerts clinicians to possible cardiac sequelae in these children,” she added.
Experts weigh in
Scott Aydin, MD, medical director of pediatric cardiac intensive care, Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, said that this case report is “unfortunately not all that surprising.
“Since the initial presentations of MIS-C several months ago, we have suspected mechanisms of direct and indirect injury to the myocardium. This important work is just the next step in further understanding the mechanisms of how COVID-19 creates havoc in the human body and the choices of possible therapies we have to treat children with COVID-19 and MIS-C,” said Dr. Aydin, who was not involved with the case report.
Anish Koka, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Philadelphia, noted that, in these cases, endomyocardial biopsy is “rarely done because it is fairly invasive, but even when it has been done, the pathologic findings are of widespread inflammation rather than virus-induced cell necrosis.”
“While reports like this are sure to spawn viral tweets, it’s vital to understand that it’s not unusual to find widespread organ dissemination of virus in very sick patients. This does not mean that the virus is causing dysfunction of the organ it happens to be found in,” Dr. Koka said in an interview.
He noted that, in the case of the young girl who died, it took high PCR-cycle threshold values to isolate virus from the lung and heart samples.
“This means there was a low viral load in both organs, supporting the theory of SARS-CoV-2 as a potential trigger of a widespread inflammatory response that results in organ damage, rather than the virus itself infecting and destroying organs,” said Dr. Koka, who was also not associated with the case report.
This research had no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Aydin disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koka disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Jardiance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Famotidine associated with benefits in hospitalized COVID patients in another trial
It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.
The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”
In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.
Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.
The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.
In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).
Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2, chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.
“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”
In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H2 blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”
Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”
Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).
“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”
Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.
The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”
In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.
Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.
The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.
In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).
Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2, chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.
“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”
In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H2 blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”
Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”
Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).
“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”
Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.
The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”
In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.
Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.
The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.
In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).
Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2, chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.
“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”
In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H2 blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”
Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”
Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).
“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”
Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
REPORTING FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, famotidine use was associated with a reduction in death and either death or intubation.
Major finding: The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.37; P = .021), as well as the combined endpoint of death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040).
Study details: A single-center observational study of 83 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Disclosures: The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
Study confirms it’s possible to catch COVID-19 twice
Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.
The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.
On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.
The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.
Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.
“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.
“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
Past experience guides present
Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.
This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.
It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.
“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.
There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.
Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
Good news
That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.
That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.
But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.
“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.
“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.
It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.
Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.
Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.
“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.
The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.
On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.
The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.
Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.
“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.
“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
Past experience guides present
Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.
This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.
It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.
“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.
There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.
Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
Good news
That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.
That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.
But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.
“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.
“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.
It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.
Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.
Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.
“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.
The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.
On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.
The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.
Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.
“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.
“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
Past experience guides present
Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.
This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.
It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.
“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.
There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.
Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
Good news
That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.
That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.
But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.
“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.
“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.
It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.
Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.
Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.
“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Research examines links between ‘long COVID’ and ME/CFS
Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.
Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.
At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.
“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
A hint from the SARS outbreak
This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.
“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms
Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.
Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.
Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.
While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.
If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?
Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.
Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.
Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.
“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”
Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS.
She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.
None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.
Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.
At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.
“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
A hint from the SARS outbreak
This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.
“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms
Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.
Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.
Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.
While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.
If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?
Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.
Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.
Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.
“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”
Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS.
She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.
None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.
Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.
At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.
“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
A hint from the SARS outbreak
This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.
“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms
Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.
Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.
Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.
While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.
If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?
Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.
Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.
Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.
“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”
Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS.
She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.
None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA authorizes convalescent plasma for COVID-19
Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.
“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.
In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.
The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.
“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.
But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.
Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.
Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.
“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.
Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.
“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”
Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.
“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”
The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.
“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.
The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.
Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.
A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.
“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.
In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.
The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.
“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.
But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.
Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.
Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.
“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.
Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.
“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”
Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.
“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”
The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.
“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.
The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.
Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.
A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.
“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.
In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.
The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.
“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.
But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.
Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.
Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.
“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.
Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.
“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”
Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.
“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”
The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.
“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.
The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.
Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.
A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Serum cortisol testing for suspected adrenal insufficiency
Evaluating the hospitalized adult patient
Case
A 45-year-old female with moderate persistent asthma is admitted for right lower extremity cellulitis. She has hyponatremia with a sodium of 129 mEq/L and reports a history of longstanding fatigue and lightheadedness on standing. An early morning serum cortisol was 10 mcg/dL, normal per the reference range for the laboratory. Has adrenal insufficiency been excluded in this patient?
Overview
Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by a deficiency of cortisol. Presentation may range from nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and gastrointestinal concerns to a fulminant adrenal crisis with severe weakness and hypotension (Table 1). The diagnosis of AI is commonly delayed, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life and risking dangerous complications.1,2
AI can occur due to diseases of the adrenal glands themselves (primary) or impairment of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) secretion from the pituitary (secondary) or corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) secretion from the hypothalamus (tertiary). In the hospital setting, causes of primary AI may include autoimmune disease, infection, metastatic disease, hemorrhage, and adverse medication effects. Secondary and tertiary AI would be of particular concern for patients with traumatic brain injuries or pituitary surgery, but also are seen commonly as a result of adverse medication effects in the hospitalized patient, notably opioids and corticosteroids through suppression the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune checkpoint inhibitors via autoimmune hypophysitis.
Testing for AI in the hospitalized patient presents a host of challenges. Among these are the variability in presentation of different types of AI, high rates of exogenous corticosteroid use, the impact of critical illness on the HPA axis, medical illness altering protein binding of serum cortisol, interfering medications, the variation in assays used by laboratories, and the logistical challenges of obtaining appropriately timed phlebotomy.2,3
Cortisol testing
An intact HPA axis results in ACTH-dependent cortisol release from the adrenal glands. Cortisol secretion exhibits circadian rhythm, with the highest levels in the early morning (6 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and the lowest at night (12 a.m.). It also is pulsatile, which may explain the range of “normal” morning serum cortisol observed in a study of healthy volunteers.3 Note that serum cortisol is equivalent to plasma cortisol in current immunoassays, and will henceforth be called “cortisol” in this paper.3
There are instances when morning cortisol may strongly suggest a diagnosis of AI on its own. A meta-analysis found that morning cortisol of < 5 mcg/dL predicts AI and morning cortisol of > 13 mcg/dL ruled out AI.4 The Endocrine Society of America favors dynamic assessment of adrenal function for most patients.2
Historically, the gold standard for assessing dynamic adrenal function has been the insulin tolerance test (ITT), whereby cortisol is measured after inducing hypoglycemia to a blood glucose < 35 mg/dL. ITT is logistically difficult and poses some risk to the patient. The corticotropin (or cosyntropin) stimulation test (CST), in which a supraphysiologic dose of a synthetic ACTH analog is administered parenterally to a patient and resultant cortisol levels are measured, has been validated against the ITT and is generally preferred.5 CST is used to diagnose primary AI as well as chronic secondary and tertiary AI, given that longstanding lack of ACTH stimulation causes atrophy of the adrenal glands. The sensitivity for secondary and tertiary AI is likely lower than primary AI especially in acute onset of disease.6,7
In performance of the CST a baseline cortisol and ACTH are obtained, with subsequent cortisol testing at 30 and/or 60 minutes after administration of the ACTH analog (Figure 1). Currently, there is no consensus for which time point is preferred, but the 30-minute test is more sensitive for AI and the 60-minute test is more specific.2,7,8
CST is typically performed using a “standard high dose” of 250 mcg of the ACTH analog. There has been interest in the use of a “low-dose” 1 mcg test, which is closer to normal physiologic stimulation of the adrenal glands and may have better sensitivity for early secondary or partial AI. However, the 250-mcg dose is easier to prepare and has fewer technical pitfalls in administration as well as a lower risk for false positive testing. At this point the data do not compellingly favor the use of low-dose CST testing in general practice.2,3,7
Clinical decision making
Diagnostic evaluation should be guided by the likelihood of the disease (i.e., the pretest probability) (Figure 1). Begin with a review of the patient’s signs and symptoms, medical and family history, and medications with special consideration for opioids, exogenous steroids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).
For patients with low pretest probability for AI, morning cortisol and ACTH is a reasonable first test (Figure 1). A cortisol value of 18 mcg/dL or greater does not support AI and no further testing is needed.2 Patients with morning cortisol of 13-18 mcg/dL could be followed clinically or could undergo further testing in the inpatient environment with CST, depending upon the clinical scenario.4 Patients with serum cortisol of <13 mcg/dL warrant CST.
For patients with moderate to high pretest probability for AI, we recommend initial testing with CST. While the results of high-dose CST are not necessarily impacted by time of day, if an a.m. cortisol has not yet been obtained and it is logistically feasible to do so, performing CST in the morning will provide the most useful data for clinical interpretation.
For patients presenting with possible adrenal crisis, it is essential not to delay treatment. In these patients, obtain a cortisol paired with ACTH and initiate treatment immediately. Further testing can be deferred until the time the patient is stable.2
Potential pitfalls
Interpreting cortisol requires awareness of multiple conditions that could directly impact the results.2,3 (Table 2).
Currently available assays measure “total cortisol,” most of which is protein bound (cortisol-binding globulin as well as albumin). Therefore, conditions that lower serum protein (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, liver disease, inflammation) will lower the measured cortisol. Conversely, conditions that increase serum protein (e.g., estrogen excess in pregnancy and oral contraceptive use) will increase the measured cortisol.2,3
It is also important to recognize that existing immunoassay testing techniques informed the established cut-off for exclusion of AI at 18 mcg/dL. With newer immunoassays and emerging liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, this cut-off may be lowered; thus the assay should be confirmed with the performing laboratory. There is emerging evidence that serum or plasma free cortisol and salivary cortisol testing for AI may be useful in certain cases, but these techniques are not yet widespread or included in clinical practice guidelines.2,3,7
Population focus: Patients on exogenous steroids
Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis via negative inhibition of CRH and ACTH release, often resulting in low endogenous cortisol levels which may or may not reflect true loss of adrenal function. In addition, many corticosteroids will be detected by standard serum cortisol tests that rely on immunoassays. For this reason, cortisol measurement and CST should be done at least 18-24 hours after the last dose of exogenous steroids.
Although the focus has been on higher doses and longer courses of steroids (e.g., chronic use of ≥ 5 mg prednisone daily, or ≥ 20 mg prednisone daily for > 3 weeks), there is increasing evidence that lower doses, shorter courses, and alternate routes (e.g., inhaled, intra-articular) can result in biochemical and clinical evidence of AI.9 Thus, a thorough history and exam should be obtained to determine all recent corticosteroid exposure and cushingoid features.
Application of the data to the case
To effectively assess the patient for adrenal insufficiency, we need additional information. First and foremost, is a description of the patient’s current clinical status. If she is demonstrating evidence of adrenal crisis, treatment should not be delayed for additional testing. If she is stable, a thorough history including use of corticosteroids by any route, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, recent surgery, and liver and kidney disease is essential.
Additional evaluation reveals the patient has been using her fluticasone inhaler daily. No other source of hyponatremia or lightheadedness is identified. The patient’s risk factors of corticosteroid use and unexplained hyponatremia with associated lightheadedness increase her pretest probability of AI and a single morning cortisol of 10 mcg/dL is insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. The appropriate follow-up test is a standard high-dose cosyntropin stimulation test at least 18 hours after her last dose of fluticasone. A cortisol level > 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes in the absence of other conditions that impact cortisol testing would not be suggestive of AI. A serum cortisol level of < 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes would raise concern for abnormal adrenal reserve due to chronic corticosteroid therapy and would warrant referral to an endocrinologist.
Bottom line
An isolated serum cortisol is often insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. Hospitalists should be aware of the many factors that impact the interpretation of this test.
Dr. Gordon is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center, Portland. She is the subspecialty education coordinator of inpatient medicine for the Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Herrle is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center. She is the associate director of medical student education for the department of internal medicine at MMC and a medical director for clinical informatics at MaineHealth.
References
1. Bleicken B et al. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: A cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181db6b7a.
2. Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
3. El-Farhan N et al. Measuring cortisol in serum, urine and saliva – Are our assays good enough? Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 May;54(3):308-22. doi: 10.1177/0004563216687335.
4. Kazlauskaite R et al. Corticotropin tests for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal insufficiency: A metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4245-53.
5. Wood JB et al. A rapid test of adrenocortical function. Lancet. 1965;191:243-5.
6. Singh Ospina N et al. ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):427-34.
7. Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
8. Odom DC et al. A Single, post-ACTH cortisol measurement to screen for adrenal insufficiency in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(8):526-30. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2928.
9. Broersen LHA et al. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6): 2171-80.
Key points
• In general, random cortisol testing is of limited value and should be avoided.
• Serum cortisol testing in the hospitalized patient is impacted by a variety of patient and disease factors and should be interpreted carefully.
• For patients with low pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, early morning serum cortisol testing may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
• For patients with moderate to high pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, standard high-dose (250 mcg) corticotropin stimulation testing is preferred.
Additional reading
Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
Quiz
An 82 y.o. woman with depression is admitted from her long-term care facility with worsening weakness and mild hypoglycemia. Her supine vital signs are stable, but she exhibits a drop in systolic blood pressure of 21 mm Hg upon standing. There is no evidence of infection by history, exam, or initial workup. She is not on chronic corticosteroids by any route.
What would be your initial workup for adrenal insufficiency?
A) Morning serum cortisol and ACTH
B) Insulin tolerance test
C) Corticotropin stimulation test
D) Would not test at this point
Answer: C. Although her symptom of weakness is nonspecific, her hypoglycemia and orthostatic hypotension are concerning enough that she would qualify as moderate to high pretest probability for AI. In this setting, one would acquire a basal serum total cortisol and ACTH then administer the standard high-dose corticotropin stimulation test (250 mcg) followed by repeat serum total cortisol at 30 or 60 minutes.
Evaluating the hospitalized adult patient
Evaluating the hospitalized adult patient
Case
A 45-year-old female with moderate persistent asthma is admitted for right lower extremity cellulitis. She has hyponatremia with a sodium of 129 mEq/L and reports a history of longstanding fatigue and lightheadedness on standing. An early morning serum cortisol was 10 mcg/dL, normal per the reference range for the laboratory. Has adrenal insufficiency been excluded in this patient?
Overview
Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by a deficiency of cortisol. Presentation may range from nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and gastrointestinal concerns to a fulminant adrenal crisis with severe weakness and hypotension (Table 1). The diagnosis of AI is commonly delayed, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life and risking dangerous complications.1,2
AI can occur due to diseases of the adrenal glands themselves (primary) or impairment of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) secretion from the pituitary (secondary) or corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) secretion from the hypothalamus (tertiary). In the hospital setting, causes of primary AI may include autoimmune disease, infection, metastatic disease, hemorrhage, and adverse medication effects. Secondary and tertiary AI would be of particular concern for patients with traumatic brain injuries or pituitary surgery, but also are seen commonly as a result of adverse medication effects in the hospitalized patient, notably opioids and corticosteroids through suppression the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune checkpoint inhibitors via autoimmune hypophysitis.
Testing for AI in the hospitalized patient presents a host of challenges. Among these are the variability in presentation of different types of AI, high rates of exogenous corticosteroid use, the impact of critical illness on the HPA axis, medical illness altering protein binding of serum cortisol, interfering medications, the variation in assays used by laboratories, and the logistical challenges of obtaining appropriately timed phlebotomy.2,3
Cortisol testing
An intact HPA axis results in ACTH-dependent cortisol release from the adrenal glands. Cortisol secretion exhibits circadian rhythm, with the highest levels in the early morning (6 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and the lowest at night (12 a.m.). It also is pulsatile, which may explain the range of “normal” morning serum cortisol observed in a study of healthy volunteers.3 Note that serum cortisol is equivalent to plasma cortisol in current immunoassays, and will henceforth be called “cortisol” in this paper.3
There are instances when morning cortisol may strongly suggest a diagnosis of AI on its own. A meta-analysis found that morning cortisol of < 5 mcg/dL predicts AI and morning cortisol of > 13 mcg/dL ruled out AI.4 The Endocrine Society of America favors dynamic assessment of adrenal function for most patients.2
Historically, the gold standard for assessing dynamic adrenal function has been the insulin tolerance test (ITT), whereby cortisol is measured after inducing hypoglycemia to a blood glucose < 35 mg/dL. ITT is logistically difficult and poses some risk to the patient. The corticotropin (or cosyntropin) stimulation test (CST), in which a supraphysiologic dose of a synthetic ACTH analog is administered parenterally to a patient and resultant cortisol levels are measured, has been validated against the ITT and is generally preferred.5 CST is used to diagnose primary AI as well as chronic secondary and tertiary AI, given that longstanding lack of ACTH stimulation causes atrophy of the adrenal glands. The sensitivity for secondary and tertiary AI is likely lower than primary AI especially in acute onset of disease.6,7
In performance of the CST a baseline cortisol and ACTH are obtained, with subsequent cortisol testing at 30 and/or 60 minutes after administration of the ACTH analog (Figure 1). Currently, there is no consensus for which time point is preferred, but the 30-minute test is more sensitive for AI and the 60-minute test is more specific.2,7,8
CST is typically performed using a “standard high dose” of 250 mcg of the ACTH analog. There has been interest in the use of a “low-dose” 1 mcg test, which is closer to normal physiologic stimulation of the adrenal glands and may have better sensitivity for early secondary or partial AI. However, the 250-mcg dose is easier to prepare and has fewer technical pitfalls in administration as well as a lower risk for false positive testing. At this point the data do not compellingly favor the use of low-dose CST testing in general practice.2,3,7
Clinical decision making
Diagnostic evaluation should be guided by the likelihood of the disease (i.e., the pretest probability) (Figure 1). Begin with a review of the patient’s signs and symptoms, medical and family history, and medications with special consideration for opioids, exogenous steroids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).
For patients with low pretest probability for AI, morning cortisol and ACTH is a reasonable first test (Figure 1). A cortisol value of 18 mcg/dL or greater does not support AI and no further testing is needed.2 Patients with morning cortisol of 13-18 mcg/dL could be followed clinically or could undergo further testing in the inpatient environment with CST, depending upon the clinical scenario.4 Patients with serum cortisol of <13 mcg/dL warrant CST.
For patients with moderate to high pretest probability for AI, we recommend initial testing with CST. While the results of high-dose CST are not necessarily impacted by time of day, if an a.m. cortisol has not yet been obtained and it is logistically feasible to do so, performing CST in the morning will provide the most useful data for clinical interpretation.
For patients presenting with possible adrenal crisis, it is essential not to delay treatment. In these patients, obtain a cortisol paired with ACTH and initiate treatment immediately. Further testing can be deferred until the time the patient is stable.2
Potential pitfalls
Interpreting cortisol requires awareness of multiple conditions that could directly impact the results.2,3 (Table 2).
Currently available assays measure “total cortisol,” most of which is protein bound (cortisol-binding globulin as well as albumin). Therefore, conditions that lower serum protein (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, liver disease, inflammation) will lower the measured cortisol. Conversely, conditions that increase serum protein (e.g., estrogen excess in pregnancy and oral contraceptive use) will increase the measured cortisol.2,3
It is also important to recognize that existing immunoassay testing techniques informed the established cut-off for exclusion of AI at 18 mcg/dL. With newer immunoassays and emerging liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, this cut-off may be lowered; thus the assay should be confirmed with the performing laboratory. There is emerging evidence that serum or plasma free cortisol and salivary cortisol testing for AI may be useful in certain cases, but these techniques are not yet widespread or included in clinical practice guidelines.2,3,7
Population focus: Patients on exogenous steroids
Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis via negative inhibition of CRH and ACTH release, often resulting in low endogenous cortisol levels which may or may not reflect true loss of adrenal function. In addition, many corticosteroids will be detected by standard serum cortisol tests that rely on immunoassays. For this reason, cortisol measurement and CST should be done at least 18-24 hours after the last dose of exogenous steroids.
Although the focus has been on higher doses and longer courses of steroids (e.g., chronic use of ≥ 5 mg prednisone daily, or ≥ 20 mg prednisone daily for > 3 weeks), there is increasing evidence that lower doses, shorter courses, and alternate routes (e.g., inhaled, intra-articular) can result in biochemical and clinical evidence of AI.9 Thus, a thorough history and exam should be obtained to determine all recent corticosteroid exposure and cushingoid features.
Application of the data to the case
To effectively assess the patient for adrenal insufficiency, we need additional information. First and foremost, is a description of the patient’s current clinical status. If she is demonstrating evidence of adrenal crisis, treatment should not be delayed for additional testing. If she is stable, a thorough history including use of corticosteroids by any route, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, recent surgery, and liver and kidney disease is essential.
Additional evaluation reveals the patient has been using her fluticasone inhaler daily. No other source of hyponatremia or lightheadedness is identified. The patient’s risk factors of corticosteroid use and unexplained hyponatremia with associated lightheadedness increase her pretest probability of AI and a single morning cortisol of 10 mcg/dL is insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. The appropriate follow-up test is a standard high-dose cosyntropin stimulation test at least 18 hours after her last dose of fluticasone. A cortisol level > 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes in the absence of other conditions that impact cortisol testing would not be suggestive of AI. A serum cortisol level of < 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes would raise concern for abnormal adrenal reserve due to chronic corticosteroid therapy and would warrant referral to an endocrinologist.
Bottom line
An isolated serum cortisol is often insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. Hospitalists should be aware of the many factors that impact the interpretation of this test.
Dr. Gordon is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center, Portland. She is the subspecialty education coordinator of inpatient medicine for the Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Herrle is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center. She is the associate director of medical student education for the department of internal medicine at MMC and a medical director for clinical informatics at MaineHealth.
References
1. Bleicken B et al. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: A cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181db6b7a.
2. Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
3. El-Farhan N et al. Measuring cortisol in serum, urine and saliva – Are our assays good enough? Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 May;54(3):308-22. doi: 10.1177/0004563216687335.
4. Kazlauskaite R et al. Corticotropin tests for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal insufficiency: A metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4245-53.
5. Wood JB et al. A rapid test of adrenocortical function. Lancet. 1965;191:243-5.
6. Singh Ospina N et al. ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):427-34.
7. Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
8. Odom DC et al. A Single, post-ACTH cortisol measurement to screen for adrenal insufficiency in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(8):526-30. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2928.
9. Broersen LHA et al. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6): 2171-80.
Key points
• In general, random cortisol testing is of limited value and should be avoided.
• Serum cortisol testing in the hospitalized patient is impacted by a variety of patient and disease factors and should be interpreted carefully.
• For patients with low pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, early morning serum cortisol testing may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
• For patients with moderate to high pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, standard high-dose (250 mcg) corticotropin stimulation testing is preferred.
Additional reading
Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
Quiz
An 82 y.o. woman with depression is admitted from her long-term care facility with worsening weakness and mild hypoglycemia. Her supine vital signs are stable, but she exhibits a drop in systolic blood pressure of 21 mm Hg upon standing. There is no evidence of infection by history, exam, or initial workup. She is not on chronic corticosteroids by any route.
What would be your initial workup for adrenal insufficiency?
A) Morning serum cortisol and ACTH
B) Insulin tolerance test
C) Corticotropin stimulation test
D) Would not test at this point
Answer: C. Although her symptom of weakness is nonspecific, her hypoglycemia and orthostatic hypotension are concerning enough that she would qualify as moderate to high pretest probability for AI. In this setting, one would acquire a basal serum total cortisol and ACTH then administer the standard high-dose corticotropin stimulation test (250 mcg) followed by repeat serum total cortisol at 30 or 60 minutes.
Case
A 45-year-old female with moderate persistent asthma is admitted for right lower extremity cellulitis. She has hyponatremia with a sodium of 129 mEq/L and reports a history of longstanding fatigue and lightheadedness on standing. An early morning serum cortisol was 10 mcg/dL, normal per the reference range for the laboratory. Has adrenal insufficiency been excluded in this patient?
Overview
Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by a deficiency of cortisol. Presentation may range from nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and gastrointestinal concerns to a fulminant adrenal crisis with severe weakness and hypotension (Table 1). The diagnosis of AI is commonly delayed, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life and risking dangerous complications.1,2
AI can occur due to diseases of the adrenal glands themselves (primary) or impairment of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) secretion from the pituitary (secondary) or corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) secretion from the hypothalamus (tertiary). In the hospital setting, causes of primary AI may include autoimmune disease, infection, metastatic disease, hemorrhage, and adverse medication effects. Secondary and tertiary AI would be of particular concern for patients with traumatic brain injuries or pituitary surgery, but also are seen commonly as a result of adverse medication effects in the hospitalized patient, notably opioids and corticosteroids through suppression the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune checkpoint inhibitors via autoimmune hypophysitis.
Testing for AI in the hospitalized patient presents a host of challenges. Among these are the variability in presentation of different types of AI, high rates of exogenous corticosteroid use, the impact of critical illness on the HPA axis, medical illness altering protein binding of serum cortisol, interfering medications, the variation in assays used by laboratories, and the logistical challenges of obtaining appropriately timed phlebotomy.2,3
Cortisol testing
An intact HPA axis results in ACTH-dependent cortisol release from the adrenal glands. Cortisol secretion exhibits circadian rhythm, with the highest levels in the early morning (6 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and the lowest at night (12 a.m.). It also is pulsatile, which may explain the range of “normal” morning serum cortisol observed in a study of healthy volunteers.3 Note that serum cortisol is equivalent to plasma cortisol in current immunoassays, and will henceforth be called “cortisol” in this paper.3
There are instances when morning cortisol may strongly suggest a diagnosis of AI on its own. A meta-analysis found that morning cortisol of < 5 mcg/dL predicts AI and morning cortisol of > 13 mcg/dL ruled out AI.4 The Endocrine Society of America favors dynamic assessment of adrenal function for most patients.2
Historically, the gold standard for assessing dynamic adrenal function has been the insulin tolerance test (ITT), whereby cortisol is measured after inducing hypoglycemia to a blood glucose < 35 mg/dL. ITT is logistically difficult and poses some risk to the patient. The corticotropin (or cosyntropin) stimulation test (CST), in which a supraphysiologic dose of a synthetic ACTH analog is administered parenterally to a patient and resultant cortisol levels are measured, has been validated against the ITT and is generally preferred.5 CST is used to diagnose primary AI as well as chronic secondary and tertiary AI, given that longstanding lack of ACTH stimulation causes atrophy of the adrenal glands. The sensitivity for secondary and tertiary AI is likely lower than primary AI especially in acute onset of disease.6,7
In performance of the CST a baseline cortisol and ACTH are obtained, with subsequent cortisol testing at 30 and/or 60 minutes after administration of the ACTH analog (Figure 1). Currently, there is no consensus for which time point is preferred, but the 30-minute test is more sensitive for AI and the 60-minute test is more specific.2,7,8
CST is typically performed using a “standard high dose” of 250 mcg of the ACTH analog. There has been interest in the use of a “low-dose” 1 mcg test, which is closer to normal physiologic stimulation of the adrenal glands and may have better sensitivity for early secondary or partial AI. However, the 250-mcg dose is easier to prepare and has fewer technical pitfalls in administration as well as a lower risk for false positive testing. At this point the data do not compellingly favor the use of low-dose CST testing in general practice.2,3,7
Clinical decision making
Diagnostic evaluation should be guided by the likelihood of the disease (i.e., the pretest probability) (Figure 1). Begin with a review of the patient’s signs and symptoms, medical and family history, and medications with special consideration for opioids, exogenous steroids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).
For patients with low pretest probability for AI, morning cortisol and ACTH is a reasonable first test (Figure 1). A cortisol value of 18 mcg/dL or greater does not support AI and no further testing is needed.2 Patients with morning cortisol of 13-18 mcg/dL could be followed clinically or could undergo further testing in the inpatient environment with CST, depending upon the clinical scenario.4 Patients with serum cortisol of <13 mcg/dL warrant CST.
For patients with moderate to high pretest probability for AI, we recommend initial testing with CST. While the results of high-dose CST are not necessarily impacted by time of day, if an a.m. cortisol has not yet been obtained and it is logistically feasible to do so, performing CST in the morning will provide the most useful data for clinical interpretation.
For patients presenting with possible adrenal crisis, it is essential not to delay treatment. In these patients, obtain a cortisol paired with ACTH and initiate treatment immediately. Further testing can be deferred until the time the patient is stable.2
Potential pitfalls
Interpreting cortisol requires awareness of multiple conditions that could directly impact the results.2,3 (Table 2).
Currently available assays measure “total cortisol,” most of which is protein bound (cortisol-binding globulin as well as albumin). Therefore, conditions that lower serum protein (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, liver disease, inflammation) will lower the measured cortisol. Conversely, conditions that increase serum protein (e.g., estrogen excess in pregnancy and oral contraceptive use) will increase the measured cortisol.2,3
It is also important to recognize that existing immunoassay testing techniques informed the established cut-off for exclusion of AI at 18 mcg/dL. With newer immunoassays and emerging liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, this cut-off may be lowered; thus the assay should be confirmed with the performing laboratory. There is emerging evidence that serum or plasma free cortisol and salivary cortisol testing for AI may be useful in certain cases, but these techniques are not yet widespread or included in clinical practice guidelines.2,3,7
Population focus: Patients on exogenous steroids
Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis via negative inhibition of CRH and ACTH release, often resulting in low endogenous cortisol levels which may or may not reflect true loss of adrenal function. In addition, many corticosteroids will be detected by standard serum cortisol tests that rely on immunoassays. For this reason, cortisol measurement and CST should be done at least 18-24 hours after the last dose of exogenous steroids.
Although the focus has been on higher doses and longer courses of steroids (e.g., chronic use of ≥ 5 mg prednisone daily, or ≥ 20 mg prednisone daily for > 3 weeks), there is increasing evidence that lower doses, shorter courses, and alternate routes (e.g., inhaled, intra-articular) can result in biochemical and clinical evidence of AI.9 Thus, a thorough history and exam should be obtained to determine all recent corticosteroid exposure and cushingoid features.
Application of the data to the case
To effectively assess the patient for adrenal insufficiency, we need additional information. First and foremost, is a description of the patient’s current clinical status. If she is demonstrating evidence of adrenal crisis, treatment should not be delayed for additional testing. If she is stable, a thorough history including use of corticosteroids by any route, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, recent surgery, and liver and kidney disease is essential.
Additional evaluation reveals the patient has been using her fluticasone inhaler daily. No other source of hyponatremia or lightheadedness is identified. The patient’s risk factors of corticosteroid use and unexplained hyponatremia with associated lightheadedness increase her pretest probability of AI and a single morning cortisol of 10 mcg/dL is insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. The appropriate follow-up test is a standard high-dose cosyntropin stimulation test at least 18 hours after her last dose of fluticasone. A cortisol level > 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes in the absence of other conditions that impact cortisol testing would not be suggestive of AI. A serum cortisol level of < 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes would raise concern for abnormal adrenal reserve due to chronic corticosteroid therapy and would warrant referral to an endocrinologist.
Bottom line
An isolated serum cortisol is often insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. Hospitalists should be aware of the many factors that impact the interpretation of this test.
Dr. Gordon is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center, Portland. She is the subspecialty education coordinator of inpatient medicine for the Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Herrle is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center. She is the associate director of medical student education for the department of internal medicine at MMC and a medical director for clinical informatics at MaineHealth.
References
1. Bleicken B et al. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: A cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181db6b7a.
2. Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
3. El-Farhan N et al. Measuring cortisol in serum, urine and saliva – Are our assays good enough? Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 May;54(3):308-22. doi: 10.1177/0004563216687335.
4. Kazlauskaite R et al. Corticotropin tests for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal insufficiency: A metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4245-53.
5. Wood JB et al. A rapid test of adrenocortical function. Lancet. 1965;191:243-5.
6. Singh Ospina N et al. ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):427-34.
7. Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
8. Odom DC et al. A Single, post-ACTH cortisol measurement to screen for adrenal insufficiency in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(8):526-30. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2928.
9. Broersen LHA et al. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6): 2171-80.
Key points
• In general, random cortisol testing is of limited value and should be avoided.
• Serum cortisol testing in the hospitalized patient is impacted by a variety of patient and disease factors and should be interpreted carefully.
• For patients with low pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, early morning serum cortisol testing may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
• For patients with moderate to high pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, standard high-dose (250 mcg) corticotropin stimulation testing is preferred.
Additional reading
Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
Quiz
An 82 y.o. woman with depression is admitted from her long-term care facility with worsening weakness and mild hypoglycemia. Her supine vital signs are stable, but she exhibits a drop in systolic blood pressure of 21 mm Hg upon standing. There is no evidence of infection by history, exam, or initial workup. She is not on chronic corticosteroids by any route.
What would be your initial workup for adrenal insufficiency?
A) Morning serum cortisol and ACTH
B) Insulin tolerance test
C) Corticotropin stimulation test
D) Would not test at this point
Answer: C. Although her symptom of weakness is nonspecific, her hypoglycemia and orthostatic hypotension are concerning enough that she would qualify as moderate to high pretest probability for AI. In this setting, one would acquire a basal serum total cortisol and ACTH then administer the standard high-dose corticotropin stimulation test (250 mcg) followed by repeat serum total cortisol at 30 or 60 minutes.