User login
Guidance defines vaping-related respiratory syndrome
ORLANDO – Knowledge of vaping devices, familiarity with terminology, and the ability to quickly pinpoint individuals at risk of lung injury are just a few skills that can help critical care professionals confronted with patients who may have vaping-associated lung disease, according to a new guidance document.
The guidance offers a risk-stratification system that classifies patients into groups based on exposure, symptoms, and imaging results, and provides specific evaluation needs and management strategies for each. The guidance is designed to help critical care professionals efficiently identify those at high risk of respiratory failure.
Physicians also need to communicate with patients to identify what substances are being vaped and develop effective methods to encourage abstinence, according to the authors, led by Craig M. Lilly, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine, anesthesiology, and surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
“I would encourage every intensivist, when they leave their intensive care unit at night, [to ask], ‘have I advised against vaping today?’ ” Dr. Lilly said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The guidelines, concurrently published as a review article in Critical Care Explorations, propose the term vaping-associated respiratory distress syndrome (VARDS), which the authors say constitutes an acute and progressive respiratory syndrome marked by pathologic changes of lung injury and potentially life-threatening hypoxemic respiratory failure.
They also introduce the three-group Worcester classification system, which is intended to triage vaping-exposed individuals for risk of VARDS based on the presence or absence of vaping-related symptoms and infiltrates, and normal or abnormal oxygen saturation.
“It’s very simple,” said Dr. Lilly, who added that the risk stratification model was developed at the request of Massachusetts public health officials.
Patients with vaping exposure but no symptoms attributable to vaping, such as cough, chest pain, or weight loss, are classified as Worcester Low Risk and testing is not recommended, he said.
By contrast, individuals are considered Worcester Medium Risk if they have vaping exposure, symptoms, and a vaping-associated abnormal pattern on imaging, but no hypoxemia; the presence of hypoxemia would tip the scale toward Worcester High Risk.
“Most patients that have died from vaping have been sent out of emergency rooms when they were noted to be hypoxic,” Dr. Lilly told meeting attendees.
Louella B. Amos, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said she expects the guidance and risk stratification system will be useful not only for critical care specialists, but for other health care providers as well.
“It’s important to make decisions relatively quickly, depending on the severity of symptoms, and I think this is nice and simple,” Dr. Amos said in an interview.
“We always triage when we see patients, either at the door or in our clinic, or behind that, even in the hospital,” she said. “So I think this can be a great tool for everybody, not only the intensivist, but people who are triaging at the front.”
Management of individuals at low risk of VARDS begins with encouragement of abstinence. “We think that every vaping patient should be advised to quit vaping,” Dr. Lilly said. Patients who are interested in quitting who have not yet worked with someone in their health care team whom they trust can be referred to their primary care physicians for counseling, he added, while those struggling with addiction, unable to quit, and unable to partner with a primary care physician can be referred to an addiction medicine specialist.
For moderate-risk patients, vaping cessation is “absolutely mandatory,” said Dr. Lilly, who recommended monitoring of vaping abstinence, outpatient evaluation based on imaging studies, and adequate follow-up to ensure symptoms resolve, tests normalize, and daily activities bounce back to baseline levels.
The guidance offers more extensive recommendations for the VARDS high-risk group, including supervised vaping abstinence, continuous pulse oximetry, and early intervention with noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation if required, Dr. Lilly said.
Judging vaping exposure is challenging, requiring clinicians to have a familiarity with the many different devices that are available.
Beyond device type, he added, it’s important to know the various terms for devices and lingo that patients may use to describe them, what solutions are vaped, whether those solutions are commercially prepared or off the street, the dose the device delivers, and a number of other factors, he said.
Clinical evaluation typically comes down to unexplained cough, chest pain, weight loss, fatigue, or dyspnea, though one other clue is whether there are gastrointestinal symptoms: “The same way that aerosols can go down to the lungs, they also go into the GI tract, and when nausea, vomiting, or cramping abdominal pain is tightly associated with vaping exposure, one should assume that the patient has been toxin exposed,” he explained.
Dr. Lilly said he had no financial relationships to disclose.
ORLANDO – Knowledge of vaping devices, familiarity with terminology, and the ability to quickly pinpoint individuals at risk of lung injury are just a few skills that can help critical care professionals confronted with patients who may have vaping-associated lung disease, according to a new guidance document.
The guidance offers a risk-stratification system that classifies patients into groups based on exposure, symptoms, and imaging results, and provides specific evaluation needs and management strategies for each. The guidance is designed to help critical care professionals efficiently identify those at high risk of respiratory failure.
Physicians also need to communicate with patients to identify what substances are being vaped and develop effective methods to encourage abstinence, according to the authors, led by Craig M. Lilly, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine, anesthesiology, and surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
“I would encourage every intensivist, when they leave their intensive care unit at night, [to ask], ‘have I advised against vaping today?’ ” Dr. Lilly said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The guidelines, concurrently published as a review article in Critical Care Explorations, propose the term vaping-associated respiratory distress syndrome (VARDS), which the authors say constitutes an acute and progressive respiratory syndrome marked by pathologic changes of lung injury and potentially life-threatening hypoxemic respiratory failure.
They also introduce the three-group Worcester classification system, which is intended to triage vaping-exposed individuals for risk of VARDS based on the presence or absence of vaping-related symptoms and infiltrates, and normal or abnormal oxygen saturation.
“It’s very simple,” said Dr. Lilly, who added that the risk stratification model was developed at the request of Massachusetts public health officials.
Patients with vaping exposure but no symptoms attributable to vaping, such as cough, chest pain, or weight loss, are classified as Worcester Low Risk and testing is not recommended, he said.
By contrast, individuals are considered Worcester Medium Risk if they have vaping exposure, symptoms, and a vaping-associated abnormal pattern on imaging, but no hypoxemia; the presence of hypoxemia would tip the scale toward Worcester High Risk.
“Most patients that have died from vaping have been sent out of emergency rooms when they were noted to be hypoxic,” Dr. Lilly told meeting attendees.
Louella B. Amos, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said she expects the guidance and risk stratification system will be useful not only for critical care specialists, but for other health care providers as well.
“It’s important to make decisions relatively quickly, depending on the severity of symptoms, and I think this is nice and simple,” Dr. Amos said in an interview.
“We always triage when we see patients, either at the door or in our clinic, or behind that, even in the hospital,” she said. “So I think this can be a great tool for everybody, not only the intensivist, but people who are triaging at the front.”
Management of individuals at low risk of VARDS begins with encouragement of abstinence. “We think that every vaping patient should be advised to quit vaping,” Dr. Lilly said. Patients who are interested in quitting who have not yet worked with someone in their health care team whom they trust can be referred to their primary care physicians for counseling, he added, while those struggling with addiction, unable to quit, and unable to partner with a primary care physician can be referred to an addiction medicine specialist.
For moderate-risk patients, vaping cessation is “absolutely mandatory,” said Dr. Lilly, who recommended monitoring of vaping abstinence, outpatient evaluation based on imaging studies, and adequate follow-up to ensure symptoms resolve, tests normalize, and daily activities bounce back to baseline levels.
The guidance offers more extensive recommendations for the VARDS high-risk group, including supervised vaping abstinence, continuous pulse oximetry, and early intervention with noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation if required, Dr. Lilly said.
Judging vaping exposure is challenging, requiring clinicians to have a familiarity with the many different devices that are available.
Beyond device type, he added, it’s important to know the various terms for devices and lingo that patients may use to describe them, what solutions are vaped, whether those solutions are commercially prepared or off the street, the dose the device delivers, and a number of other factors, he said.
Clinical evaluation typically comes down to unexplained cough, chest pain, weight loss, fatigue, or dyspnea, though one other clue is whether there are gastrointestinal symptoms: “The same way that aerosols can go down to the lungs, they also go into the GI tract, and when nausea, vomiting, or cramping abdominal pain is tightly associated with vaping exposure, one should assume that the patient has been toxin exposed,” he explained.
Dr. Lilly said he had no financial relationships to disclose.
ORLANDO – Knowledge of vaping devices, familiarity with terminology, and the ability to quickly pinpoint individuals at risk of lung injury are just a few skills that can help critical care professionals confronted with patients who may have vaping-associated lung disease, according to a new guidance document.
The guidance offers a risk-stratification system that classifies patients into groups based on exposure, symptoms, and imaging results, and provides specific evaluation needs and management strategies for each. The guidance is designed to help critical care professionals efficiently identify those at high risk of respiratory failure.
Physicians also need to communicate with patients to identify what substances are being vaped and develop effective methods to encourage abstinence, according to the authors, led by Craig M. Lilly, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine, anesthesiology, and surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
“I would encourage every intensivist, when they leave their intensive care unit at night, [to ask], ‘have I advised against vaping today?’ ” Dr. Lilly said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The guidelines, concurrently published as a review article in Critical Care Explorations, propose the term vaping-associated respiratory distress syndrome (VARDS), which the authors say constitutes an acute and progressive respiratory syndrome marked by pathologic changes of lung injury and potentially life-threatening hypoxemic respiratory failure.
They also introduce the three-group Worcester classification system, which is intended to triage vaping-exposed individuals for risk of VARDS based on the presence or absence of vaping-related symptoms and infiltrates, and normal or abnormal oxygen saturation.
“It’s very simple,” said Dr. Lilly, who added that the risk stratification model was developed at the request of Massachusetts public health officials.
Patients with vaping exposure but no symptoms attributable to vaping, such as cough, chest pain, or weight loss, are classified as Worcester Low Risk and testing is not recommended, he said.
By contrast, individuals are considered Worcester Medium Risk if they have vaping exposure, symptoms, and a vaping-associated abnormal pattern on imaging, but no hypoxemia; the presence of hypoxemia would tip the scale toward Worcester High Risk.
“Most patients that have died from vaping have been sent out of emergency rooms when they were noted to be hypoxic,” Dr. Lilly told meeting attendees.
Louella B. Amos, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said she expects the guidance and risk stratification system will be useful not only for critical care specialists, but for other health care providers as well.
“It’s important to make decisions relatively quickly, depending on the severity of symptoms, and I think this is nice and simple,” Dr. Amos said in an interview.
“We always triage when we see patients, either at the door or in our clinic, or behind that, even in the hospital,” she said. “So I think this can be a great tool for everybody, not only the intensivist, but people who are triaging at the front.”
Management of individuals at low risk of VARDS begins with encouragement of abstinence. “We think that every vaping patient should be advised to quit vaping,” Dr. Lilly said. Patients who are interested in quitting who have not yet worked with someone in their health care team whom they trust can be referred to their primary care physicians for counseling, he added, while those struggling with addiction, unable to quit, and unable to partner with a primary care physician can be referred to an addiction medicine specialist.
For moderate-risk patients, vaping cessation is “absolutely mandatory,” said Dr. Lilly, who recommended monitoring of vaping abstinence, outpatient evaluation based on imaging studies, and adequate follow-up to ensure symptoms resolve, tests normalize, and daily activities bounce back to baseline levels.
The guidance offers more extensive recommendations for the VARDS high-risk group, including supervised vaping abstinence, continuous pulse oximetry, and early intervention with noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation if required, Dr. Lilly said.
Judging vaping exposure is challenging, requiring clinicians to have a familiarity with the many different devices that are available.
Beyond device type, he added, it’s important to know the various terms for devices and lingo that patients may use to describe them, what solutions are vaped, whether those solutions are commercially prepared or off the street, the dose the device delivers, and a number of other factors, he said.
Clinical evaluation typically comes down to unexplained cough, chest pain, weight loss, fatigue, or dyspnea, though one other clue is whether there are gastrointestinal symptoms: “The same way that aerosols can go down to the lungs, they also go into the GI tract, and when nausea, vomiting, or cramping abdominal pain is tightly associated with vaping exposure, one should assume that the patient has been toxin exposed,” he explained.
Dr. Lilly said he had no financial relationships to disclose.
REPORTING FROM CCC49
Opioid use disorder up in sepsis hospitalizations
ORLANDO –
The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) has significantly increased over the past 15 years, the analysis further shows.
Results of the study, presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, further suggested that OUD disproportionately contributes to sepsis deaths in younger, healthier patients.
Together, these findings underscore the importance of ongoing efforts to address the opioid epidemic in the United States, according to researcher Mohammad Alrawashdeh, PhD, MSN, a postdoctoral research fellow with Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.
“In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, future public health interventions should focus on increasing awareness, recognition, and aggressive treatment of sepsis in this population,” Dr. Alrawashdeh said in an oral presentation of the study.
This study fills an important knowledge gap regarding the connection between OUD and sepsis, according to Greg S. Martin, MD, MS, FCCM, professor of medicine in pulmonary critical care at Emory University, Atlanta, and secretary for the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
“We’ve not really ever been able to piece together the relationship between opioid use disorders and sepsis,” Dr. Martin said in an interview. “It’s not that people wouldn’t suspect that there’s a connection – it’s more that we have simply not been able to get the kind of data that you can use, like they’ve done here, that really helps you to answer that question.”
The study suggests not only that OUD and sepsis are linked, Dr. Martin added, but that health care providers need to be prepared to potentially see further increases in the number of patients with OUD seen in the intensive care unit.
“Both of those are things that we certainly need to be aware of, both from the individual practitioner perspective and also the public health planning perspective,” he said.
The retrospective study by Dr. Alrawashdeh and coinvestigators focused on electronic health record data for adults admitted to 373 hospitals in the United States between 2009 and 2015, including 375,479 who had sepsis.
Over time, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of OUD among those hospitalized for sepsis, from less than 2.0% in 2009 to more than 3% in 2015, representing a significant 77.3% increase. In general, the prevalence of sepsis was significantly higher among hospitalized patients with OUD compared with patients without the disorder, at 7.2% and 5.6%, respectively.
The sepsis patients with OUD tended to be younger, healthier, and more likely to be white compared with patients without OUD, according to the report. Moreover, the sepsis patients with OUD more often had endocarditis and gram-positive and fungal bloodstream infections. They also required more mechanical ventilation and had more ICU admissions, with longer stays in both the ICU and hospital.
The OUD patients accounted for 2.1% of sepsis-associated deaths overall, but 3.3% of those deaths in healthy patients, and 7.1% of deaths among younger patients, according to the report.
Those findings provide some clues that could help guide clinical practice, according to Dr. Martin. For example, the data show a nearly fivefold increased risk of endocarditis with OUD (3.9% versus 0.7%), which may inform screening practices.
“While we don’t necessarily screen every sepsis patient for endocarditis, if it’s an opioid use disorder patient – particularly one with a bloodstream infection – then that’s almost certainly something you should be doing,” Dr. Martin said.
The data suggest gram-positive bacterial and fungal infections will more likely be encountered among these patients, which could guide empiric treatment, he said.
Providers specializing in OUD should have a heightened awareness of the potential for infection and sepsis among those patients, and perhaps be more attuned to fever and other signs of infection that might warrant a referral or additional care, Dr. Martin added.
Dr. Alrawashdeh reported no disclosures related to the study.
SOURCE: Alrawashdeh M et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Jan;48(1):28. Abstract 56.
ORLANDO –
The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) has significantly increased over the past 15 years, the analysis further shows.
Results of the study, presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, further suggested that OUD disproportionately contributes to sepsis deaths in younger, healthier patients.
Together, these findings underscore the importance of ongoing efforts to address the opioid epidemic in the United States, according to researcher Mohammad Alrawashdeh, PhD, MSN, a postdoctoral research fellow with Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.
“In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, future public health interventions should focus on increasing awareness, recognition, and aggressive treatment of sepsis in this population,” Dr. Alrawashdeh said in an oral presentation of the study.
This study fills an important knowledge gap regarding the connection between OUD and sepsis, according to Greg S. Martin, MD, MS, FCCM, professor of medicine in pulmonary critical care at Emory University, Atlanta, and secretary for the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
“We’ve not really ever been able to piece together the relationship between opioid use disorders and sepsis,” Dr. Martin said in an interview. “It’s not that people wouldn’t suspect that there’s a connection – it’s more that we have simply not been able to get the kind of data that you can use, like they’ve done here, that really helps you to answer that question.”
The study suggests not only that OUD and sepsis are linked, Dr. Martin added, but that health care providers need to be prepared to potentially see further increases in the number of patients with OUD seen in the intensive care unit.
“Both of those are things that we certainly need to be aware of, both from the individual practitioner perspective and also the public health planning perspective,” he said.
The retrospective study by Dr. Alrawashdeh and coinvestigators focused on electronic health record data for adults admitted to 373 hospitals in the United States between 2009 and 2015, including 375,479 who had sepsis.
Over time, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of OUD among those hospitalized for sepsis, from less than 2.0% in 2009 to more than 3% in 2015, representing a significant 77.3% increase. In general, the prevalence of sepsis was significantly higher among hospitalized patients with OUD compared with patients without the disorder, at 7.2% and 5.6%, respectively.
The sepsis patients with OUD tended to be younger, healthier, and more likely to be white compared with patients without OUD, according to the report. Moreover, the sepsis patients with OUD more often had endocarditis and gram-positive and fungal bloodstream infections. They also required more mechanical ventilation and had more ICU admissions, with longer stays in both the ICU and hospital.
The OUD patients accounted for 2.1% of sepsis-associated deaths overall, but 3.3% of those deaths in healthy patients, and 7.1% of deaths among younger patients, according to the report.
Those findings provide some clues that could help guide clinical practice, according to Dr. Martin. For example, the data show a nearly fivefold increased risk of endocarditis with OUD (3.9% versus 0.7%), which may inform screening practices.
“While we don’t necessarily screen every sepsis patient for endocarditis, if it’s an opioid use disorder patient – particularly one with a bloodstream infection – then that’s almost certainly something you should be doing,” Dr. Martin said.
The data suggest gram-positive bacterial and fungal infections will more likely be encountered among these patients, which could guide empiric treatment, he said.
Providers specializing in OUD should have a heightened awareness of the potential for infection and sepsis among those patients, and perhaps be more attuned to fever and other signs of infection that might warrant a referral or additional care, Dr. Martin added.
Dr. Alrawashdeh reported no disclosures related to the study.
SOURCE: Alrawashdeh M et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Jan;48(1):28. Abstract 56.
ORLANDO –
The prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) has significantly increased over the past 15 years, the analysis further shows.
Results of the study, presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, further suggested that OUD disproportionately contributes to sepsis deaths in younger, healthier patients.
Together, these findings underscore the importance of ongoing efforts to address the opioid epidemic in the United States, according to researcher Mohammad Alrawashdeh, PhD, MSN, a postdoctoral research fellow with Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston.
“In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, future public health interventions should focus on increasing awareness, recognition, and aggressive treatment of sepsis in this population,” Dr. Alrawashdeh said in an oral presentation of the study.
This study fills an important knowledge gap regarding the connection between OUD and sepsis, according to Greg S. Martin, MD, MS, FCCM, professor of medicine in pulmonary critical care at Emory University, Atlanta, and secretary for the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
“We’ve not really ever been able to piece together the relationship between opioid use disorders and sepsis,” Dr. Martin said in an interview. “It’s not that people wouldn’t suspect that there’s a connection – it’s more that we have simply not been able to get the kind of data that you can use, like they’ve done here, that really helps you to answer that question.”
The study suggests not only that OUD and sepsis are linked, Dr. Martin added, but that health care providers need to be prepared to potentially see further increases in the number of patients with OUD seen in the intensive care unit.
“Both of those are things that we certainly need to be aware of, both from the individual practitioner perspective and also the public health planning perspective,” he said.
The retrospective study by Dr. Alrawashdeh and coinvestigators focused on electronic health record data for adults admitted to 373 hospitals in the United States between 2009 and 2015, including 375,479 who had sepsis.
Over time, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of OUD among those hospitalized for sepsis, from less than 2.0% in 2009 to more than 3% in 2015, representing a significant 77.3% increase. In general, the prevalence of sepsis was significantly higher among hospitalized patients with OUD compared with patients without the disorder, at 7.2% and 5.6%, respectively.
The sepsis patients with OUD tended to be younger, healthier, and more likely to be white compared with patients without OUD, according to the report. Moreover, the sepsis patients with OUD more often had endocarditis and gram-positive and fungal bloodstream infections. They also required more mechanical ventilation and had more ICU admissions, with longer stays in both the ICU and hospital.
The OUD patients accounted for 2.1% of sepsis-associated deaths overall, but 3.3% of those deaths in healthy patients, and 7.1% of deaths among younger patients, according to the report.
Those findings provide some clues that could help guide clinical practice, according to Dr. Martin. For example, the data show a nearly fivefold increased risk of endocarditis with OUD (3.9% versus 0.7%), which may inform screening practices.
“While we don’t necessarily screen every sepsis patient for endocarditis, if it’s an opioid use disorder patient – particularly one with a bloodstream infection – then that’s almost certainly something you should be doing,” Dr. Martin said.
The data suggest gram-positive bacterial and fungal infections will more likely be encountered among these patients, which could guide empiric treatment, he said.
Providers specializing in OUD should have a heightened awareness of the potential for infection and sepsis among those patients, and perhaps be more attuned to fever and other signs of infection that might warrant a referral or additional care, Dr. Martin added.
Dr. Alrawashdeh reported no disclosures related to the study.
SOURCE: Alrawashdeh M et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Jan;48(1):28. Abstract 56.
REPORTING FROM CCC49
2019-nCoV: Structure, characteristics of key potential therapy target determined
Researchers have identified the structure of a protein that could turn out to be a potential vaccine target for the 2019-nCoV.
As is typical of other coronaviruses, 2019-nCoV makes use of a densely glycosylated spike protein to gain entry into host cells. The spike protein is a trimeric class I fusion protein that exists in a metastable prefusion conformation that undergoes a dramatic structural rearrangement to fuse the viral membrane with the host-cell membrane, according to Daniel Wrapp of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues.
The researchers performed a study to synthesize and determine the 3-D structure of the spike protein because it is a logical target for vaccine development and for the development of targeted therapeutics for COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus.
“As soon as we knew this was a coronavirus, we felt we had to jump at it,” senior author Jason S. McLellan, PhD, associate professor of molecular science, said in a press release from the University, “because we could be one of the first ones to get this structure. We knew exactly what mutations to put into this because we’ve already shown these mutations work for a bunch of other coronaviruses.”
Because recent reports by other researchers demonstrated that 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV spike proteins share the same functional host-cell receptor–angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), Dr. McLellan and his colleagues examined the relation between the two viruses. They found biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV spike protein binds ACE2 with higher affinity than the closely related SARS-CoV spike protein. “The high affinity of 2019-nCoV S for human ACE2 may contribute to the apparent ease with which 2019-nCoV can spread from human-to-human; however, additional studies are needed to investigate this possibility,” the researchers wrote.
Focusing their attention on the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the 2019-nCoV spike protein, they tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies against it and found that these antibodies showed no appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV spike protein, which suggests limited antibody cross-reactivity. For this reason, they suggested that future antibody isolation and therapeutic design efforts will benefit from specifically using 2019-nCoV spike proteins as probes.
“This information will support precision vaccine design and discovery of anti-viral therapeutics, accelerating medical countermeasure development,” they concluded.
The research was supported in part by an National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant and by intramural funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Four authors are inventors on US patent application No. 62/412,703 (Prefusion Coronavirus Spike Proteins and Their Use) and all are inventors on US patent application No. 62/972,886 (2019-nCoV Vaccine).
SOURCE: Wrapp D et al. Science. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1126/science.abb2507.
Researchers have identified the structure of a protein that could turn out to be a potential vaccine target for the 2019-nCoV.
As is typical of other coronaviruses, 2019-nCoV makes use of a densely glycosylated spike protein to gain entry into host cells. The spike protein is a trimeric class I fusion protein that exists in a metastable prefusion conformation that undergoes a dramatic structural rearrangement to fuse the viral membrane with the host-cell membrane, according to Daniel Wrapp of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues.
The researchers performed a study to synthesize and determine the 3-D structure of the spike protein because it is a logical target for vaccine development and for the development of targeted therapeutics for COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus.
“As soon as we knew this was a coronavirus, we felt we had to jump at it,” senior author Jason S. McLellan, PhD, associate professor of molecular science, said in a press release from the University, “because we could be one of the first ones to get this structure. We knew exactly what mutations to put into this because we’ve already shown these mutations work for a bunch of other coronaviruses.”
Because recent reports by other researchers demonstrated that 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV spike proteins share the same functional host-cell receptor–angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), Dr. McLellan and his colleagues examined the relation between the two viruses. They found biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV spike protein binds ACE2 with higher affinity than the closely related SARS-CoV spike protein. “The high affinity of 2019-nCoV S for human ACE2 may contribute to the apparent ease with which 2019-nCoV can spread from human-to-human; however, additional studies are needed to investigate this possibility,” the researchers wrote.
Focusing their attention on the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the 2019-nCoV spike protein, they tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies against it and found that these antibodies showed no appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV spike protein, which suggests limited antibody cross-reactivity. For this reason, they suggested that future antibody isolation and therapeutic design efforts will benefit from specifically using 2019-nCoV spike proteins as probes.
“This information will support precision vaccine design and discovery of anti-viral therapeutics, accelerating medical countermeasure development,” they concluded.
The research was supported in part by an National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant and by intramural funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Four authors are inventors on US patent application No. 62/412,703 (Prefusion Coronavirus Spike Proteins and Their Use) and all are inventors on US patent application No. 62/972,886 (2019-nCoV Vaccine).
SOURCE: Wrapp D et al. Science. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1126/science.abb2507.
Researchers have identified the structure of a protein that could turn out to be a potential vaccine target for the 2019-nCoV.
As is typical of other coronaviruses, 2019-nCoV makes use of a densely glycosylated spike protein to gain entry into host cells. The spike protein is a trimeric class I fusion protein that exists in a metastable prefusion conformation that undergoes a dramatic structural rearrangement to fuse the viral membrane with the host-cell membrane, according to Daniel Wrapp of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues.
The researchers performed a study to synthesize and determine the 3-D structure of the spike protein because it is a logical target for vaccine development and for the development of targeted therapeutics for COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus.
“As soon as we knew this was a coronavirus, we felt we had to jump at it,” senior author Jason S. McLellan, PhD, associate professor of molecular science, said in a press release from the University, “because we could be one of the first ones to get this structure. We knew exactly what mutations to put into this because we’ve already shown these mutations work for a bunch of other coronaviruses.”
Because recent reports by other researchers demonstrated that 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV spike proteins share the same functional host-cell receptor–angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), Dr. McLellan and his colleagues examined the relation between the two viruses. They found biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV spike protein binds ACE2 with higher affinity than the closely related SARS-CoV spike protein. “The high affinity of 2019-nCoV S for human ACE2 may contribute to the apparent ease with which 2019-nCoV can spread from human-to-human; however, additional studies are needed to investigate this possibility,” the researchers wrote.
Focusing their attention on the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the 2019-nCoV spike protein, they tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies against it and found that these antibodies showed no appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV spike protein, which suggests limited antibody cross-reactivity. For this reason, they suggested that future antibody isolation and therapeutic design efforts will benefit from specifically using 2019-nCoV spike proteins as probes.
“This information will support precision vaccine design and discovery of anti-viral therapeutics, accelerating medical countermeasure development,” they concluded.
The research was supported in part by an National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant and by intramural funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Four authors are inventors on US patent application No. 62/412,703 (Prefusion Coronavirus Spike Proteins and Their Use) and all are inventors on US patent application No. 62/972,886 (2019-nCoV Vaccine).
SOURCE: Wrapp D et al. Science. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1126/science.abb2507.
FROM SCIENCE
‘A glimmer of hope’ for stroke/mortality benefit with AFib catheter ablation
SNOWMASS, COLO. – stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.
Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.
However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.
Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.
The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.
The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.
The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.
The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.
“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.
Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”
Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.
Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.
However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.
Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.
The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.
The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.
The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.
The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.
“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.
Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”
Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.
Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.
However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.
Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.
The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.
The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.
The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.
The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.
“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.
Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”
Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
IBD quality initiative slashes ED utilization
AUSTIN, TEX. – A quality improvement initiative aimed at patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations by 20% or more and slashed opioid use by half, according to study results presented at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
After 15 months, the quality improvement program saw emergency department visit rates decline from 18% to 14%, a 22% relative decrease, Gil Y. Melmed, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said. Additionally, the study documented a similar decrease in the rate of hospitalization, declining from 14% to 11%, while opioid utilization rates declined from 8% to 4%. “We also found decreases in special-cause variation in other measures of interest, including CT scan utilization as well as corticosteroid use, which was reduced 29% during the course of the program,” he said.
The quality initiative was conducted through the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an outgrowth of its IBD Qorus quality improvement program. The 15-month study involved 20,392 patient visits at 15 academic and 11 private/community practices from January 2018 to April 2019. “This specific project within Qorus is focused specifically around the concept of improving access during times of urgent care need,” Dr. Melmed told this news organization. The goal was to identify practice changes that can drive improvement.
The intervention consisted of 19 different strategies, called a “Change Package,” and participating sites could choose to test and implement one or more of them, Dr. Melmed said. Some examples included designating urgent care slots in the clinic schedule, installing a nurse hotline, a weekly “huddle” to review high-risk patients, and patient education on using urgent care.
One of the drivers of the program was to provide immediate care improvement to patients, Dr. Melmed said in the interview. “As opposed to investments into the cure of IBD that we need, but which can take years to develop, this research has immediate, practical applicability for patients today,” he said.
“The fact that we were able to demonstrate reduction in emergency room utilization and hospitalization, steroid use, and narcotic use has really energized the work that we were doing. We can now show that very-low-cost process changes at a site level lead to robust improvement in patient outcomes. These changes are potentially implementable in any practice setting,” Dr. Melmed said in the interview.
After Dr. Melmed’s presentation, Maria T. Abreu, MD, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Miami, asked about the cost of the interventions. Dr. Melmed said the costs were nominal, such as paying for a new phone line for a patient hotline. “But overall the cost really involved in the program was the time that it took to review the high-risk list on a weekly basis with the team, and that is essentially a 15-minute huddle,” he said.
Later, Dr. Abreu said in an interview that the program was “a terrific example of how measuring outcomes and sharing ideas can make huge impacts in the lives of patients.” She added, “An enormous amount of money is spent on clinical trials of expensive biologics which have revolutionized treatment, yet the humanistic aspects of our care have just as great of an impact. In this study, each center focused on ways they could lower ER visits and hospitalizations. One size did not fit all, yet they could learn from each other. The very platform they used to conduct the study is a model for all of us.”
Corey A. Siegel, MD, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and Dr. Melmed's coprincipal investigator on Qorus, said the quality initiative now includes 49 GI practices across the country with plans to grow to 60 by the end of the year. "We have created this 'collaboratory' for providers from actross the country to work togetherr to learn how to best deliver high-qulaity care for patients with IBD," he said.
Another feature of the quality initiative allowed participating sites to see how they compared with others anonymously, Dr. Melmed said. “Using the data, we called out high-performing sites to teach the rest of us what they were doing that enabled them to improve, so that all of us could learn from their successes,” he said.
The researchers are aiming to evaluate costs and identify the most successful interventions, with the plan to present the latter at Digestive Disease Week® 2020 and use them to develop a toolkit practices can use. “Ultimately,” said Dr. Melmed, “this is scalable.”
Dr. Melmed disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Jannsen, GSK, Medtronic, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Techlab; IBD Qorus receives support from Abbvie, AMAG, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Janssen, Nephoroceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB.
SOURCE: Melmed GT et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session 28.
AUSTIN, TEX. – A quality improvement initiative aimed at patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations by 20% or more and slashed opioid use by half, according to study results presented at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
After 15 months, the quality improvement program saw emergency department visit rates decline from 18% to 14%, a 22% relative decrease, Gil Y. Melmed, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said. Additionally, the study documented a similar decrease in the rate of hospitalization, declining from 14% to 11%, while opioid utilization rates declined from 8% to 4%. “We also found decreases in special-cause variation in other measures of interest, including CT scan utilization as well as corticosteroid use, which was reduced 29% during the course of the program,” he said.
The quality initiative was conducted through the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an outgrowth of its IBD Qorus quality improvement program. The 15-month study involved 20,392 patient visits at 15 academic and 11 private/community practices from January 2018 to April 2019. “This specific project within Qorus is focused specifically around the concept of improving access during times of urgent care need,” Dr. Melmed told this news organization. The goal was to identify practice changes that can drive improvement.
The intervention consisted of 19 different strategies, called a “Change Package,” and participating sites could choose to test and implement one or more of them, Dr. Melmed said. Some examples included designating urgent care slots in the clinic schedule, installing a nurse hotline, a weekly “huddle” to review high-risk patients, and patient education on using urgent care.
One of the drivers of the program was to provide immediate care improvement to patients, Dr. Melmed said in the interview. “As opposed to investments into the cure of IBD that we need, but which can take years to develop, this research has immediate, practical applicability for patients today,” he said.
“The fact that we were able to demonstrate reduction in emergency room utilization and hospitalization, steroid use, and narcotic use has really energized the work that we were doing. We can now show that very-low-cost process changes at a site level lead to robust improvement in patient outcomes. These changes are potentially implementable in any practice setting,” Dr. Melmed said in the interview.
After Dr. Melmed’s presentation, Maria T. Abreu, MD, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Miami, asked about the cost of the interventions. Dr. Melmed said the costs were nominal, such as paying for a new phone line for a patient hotline. “But overall the cost really involved in the program was the time that it took to review the high-risk list on a weekly basis with the team, and that is essentially a 15-minute huddle,” he said.
Later, Dr. Abreu said in an interview that the program was “a terrific example of how measuring outcomes and sharing ideas can make huge impacts in the lives of patients.” She added, “An enormous amount of money is spent on clinical trials of expensive biologics which have revolutionized treatment, yet the humanistic aspects of our care have just as great of an impact. In this study, each center focused on ways they could lower ER visits and hospitalizations. One size did not fit all, yet they could learn from each other. The very platform they used to conduct the study is a model for all of us.”
Corey A. Siegel, MD, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and Dr. Melmed's coprincipal investigator on Qorus, said the quality initiative now includes 49 GI practices across the country with plans to grow to 60 by the end of the year. "We have created this 'collaboratory' for providers from actross the country to work togetherr to learn how to best deliver high-qulaity care for patients with IBD," he said.
Another feature of the quality initiative allowed participating sites to see how they compared with others anonymously, Dr. Melmed said. “Using the data, we called out high-performing sites to teach the rest of us what they were doing that enabled them to improve, so that all of us could learn from their successes,” he said.
The researchers are aiming to evaluate costs and identify the most successful interventions, with the plan to present the latter at Digestive Disease Week® 2020 and use them to develop a toolkit practices can use. “Ultimately,” said Dr. Melmed, “this is scalable.”
Dr. Melmed disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Jannsen, GSK, Medtronic, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Techlab; IBD Qorus receives support from Abbvie, AMAG, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Janssen, Nephoroceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB.
SOURCE: Melmed GT et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session 28.
AUSTIN, TEX. – A quality improvement initiative aimed at patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations by 20% or more and slashed opioid use by half, according to study results presented at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
After 15 months, the quality improvement program saw emergency department visit rates decline from 18% to 14%, a 22% relative decrease, Gil Y. Melmed, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said. Additionally, the study documented a similar decrease in the rate of hospitalization, declining from 14% to 11%, while opioid utilization rates declined from 8% to 4%. “We also found decreases in special-cause variation in other measures of interest, including CT scan utilization as well as corticosteroid use, which was reduced 29% during the course of the program,” he said.
The quality initiative was conducted through the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an outgrowth of its IBD Qorus quality improvement program. The 15-month study involved 20,392 patient visits at 15 academic and 11 private/community practices from January 2018 to April 2019. “This specific project within Qorus is focused specifically around the concept of improving access during times of urgent care need,” Dr. Melmed told this news organization. The goal was to identify practice changes that can drive improvement.
The intervention consisted of 19 different strategies, called a “Change Package,” and participating sites could choose to test and implement one or more of them, Dr. Melmed said. Some examples included designating urgent care slots in the clinic schedule, installing a nurse hotline, a weekly “huddle” to review high-risk patients, and patient education on using urgent care.
One of the drivers of the program was to provide immediate care improvement to patients, Dr. Melmed said in the interview. “As opposed to investments into the cure of IBD that we need, but which can take years to develop, this research has immediate, practical applicability for patients today,” he said.
“The fact that we were able to demonstrate reduction in emergency room utilization and hospitalization, steroid use, and narcotic use has really energized the work that we were doing. We can now show that very-low-cost process changes at a site level lead to robust improvement in patient outcomes. These changes are potentially implementable in any practice setting,” Dr. Melmed said in the interview.
After Dr. Melmed’s presentation, Maria T. Abreu, MD, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Miami, asked about the cost of the interventions. Dr. Melmed said the costs were nominal, such as paying for a new phone line for a patient hotline. “But overall the cost really involved in the program was the time that it took to review the high-risk list on a weekly basis with the team, and that is essentially a 15-minute huddle,” he said.
Later, Dr. Abreu said in an interview that the program was “a terrific example of how measuring outcomes and sharing ideas can make huge impacts in the lives of patients.” She added, “An enormous amount of money is spent on clinical trials of expensive biologics which have revolutionized treatment, yet the humanistic aspects of our care have just as great of an impact. In this study, each center focused on ways they could lower ER visits and hospitalizations. One size did not fit all, yet they could learn from each other. The very platform they used to conduct the study is a model for all of us.”
Corey A. Siegel, MD, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and Dr. Melmed's coprincipal investigator on Qorus, said the quality initiative now includes 49 GI practices across the country with plans to grow to 60 by the end of the year. "We have created this 'collaboratory' for providers from actross the country to work togetherr to learn how to best deliver high-qulaity care for patients with IBD," he said.
Another feature of the quality initiative allowed participating sites to see how they compared with others anonymously, Dr. Melmed said. “Using the data, we called out high-performing sites to teach the rest of us what they were doing that enabled them to improve, so that all of us could learn from their successes,” he said.
The researchers are aiming to evaluate costs and identify the most successful interventions, with the plan to present the latter at Digestive Disease Week® 2020 and use them to develop a toolkit practices can use. “Ultimately,” said Dr. Melmed, “this is scalable.”
Dr. Melmed disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Jannsen, GSK, Medtronic, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Techlab; IBD Qorus receives support from Abbvie, AMAG, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Janssen, Nephoroceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB.
SOURCE: Melmed GT et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session 28.
REPORTING FROM CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
Cardiac arrest: Targeted temperature management a game changer
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our practice is that ,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).
“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.
The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).
The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.
The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.
Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
TTM a major breakthrough
Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).
TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.
“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.
TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.
Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.
She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our practice is that ,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).
“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.
The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).
The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.
The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.
Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
TTM a major breakthrough
Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).
TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.
“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.
TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.
Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.
She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our practice is that ,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).
“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.
The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).
The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.
The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.
Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
TTM a major breakthrough
Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).
TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.
“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.
TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.
Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.
She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
HHS declares coronavirus emergency, orders quarantine
The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.
"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*
2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.
“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”
These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”
The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”
* This story was updated on 01/31/2020.
The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.
"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*
2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.
“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”
These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”
The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”
* This story was updated on 01/31/2020.
The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.
"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*
2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.
“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”
These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”
The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”
* This story was updated on 01/31/2020.
BP levels during endovascular stroke therapy affect neurologic outcomes
For patients with acute ischemic stroke, prolonged durations of blood pressure above or below certain thresholds during endovascular therapy may be linked to poor functional outcome, results of a retrospective study suggest.
Mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) lower than 70 mm Hg for 10 minutes or more, or higher than 90 mm Hg for 45 minutes or more, represented “critical thresholds” associated with worse neurologic outcomes, the study authors wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“These results suggest MABP may be a modifiable therapeutic target to prevent or reduce poor functional outcome in patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke, and that MABP should possibly be maintained within such narrow limits, wrote the authors, led by Mads Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesia at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.
The findings come from an analysis of BP data from 365 patients with acute ischemic stroke enrolled in three randomized trials evaluating different strategies for anesthesia. Among those patients, the mean age was approximately 71 years, and about 45% were women.
The investigators looked at a variety of BP-related variables during endovascular therapy to assess their impact on functional outcome, based on modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 90 days.
Having an MABP below 70 mm Hg for a cumulative time of at least 10 minutes substantially increased odds of higher 90-day mRS scores (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.22), according to Dr. Rasmussen and colleagues. The number needed to harm (NNH) at this threshold was 10; in other words, to harm 1 patient, 10 patients are needed with procedural MABP below 70 mm Hg for at least 10 minutes.
Likewise, having an MABP above 90 mm Hg for a cumulated time of at least 45 minutes significantly increased odds of higher 90-day mRS scores, with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.02) and a number needed to harm of 10.
Odds of shifting toward a worse neurologic outcome increased by 62% for every continuous 10 minutes of MABP below 70 mm Hg, and by 8% for every continuous 10 minutes above 90 mm Hg.
The maximum MABP during the procedure was significantly associated with neurologic outcomes in the study, while by contrast, maximum procedural systolic BP was not, according to the investigators.
In general, the study findings suggest that MABP is “more sensitive” than systolic BP when assessing hypotension and hypertension in these patients. However, these findings are subject to a number of limitations, the investigators wrote, including the retrospective nature of the analysis and the selected group of patients enrolled in studies designed to evaluate anesthesia strategies, not hemodynamic management.
“Randomized studies are needed to determine the optimal blood pressure management strategy during endovascular therapy,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Rasmussen reported grant support from the Health Research Foundation of Central Denmark Region and the National Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation; a research award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and personal fees from Abbott Medical Sweden, I4L Innovation for Life, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Zoll.
SOURCE: Rasmussen M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4838.
For patients with acute ischemic stroke, prolonged durations of blood pressure above or below certain thresholds during endovascular therapy may be linked to poor functional outcome, results of a retrospective study suggest.
Mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) lower than 70 mm Hg for 10 minutes or more, or higher than 90 mm Hg for 45 minutes or more, represented “critical thresholds” associated with worse neurologic outcomes, the study authors wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“These results suggest MABP may be a modifiable therapeutic target to prevent or reduce poor functional outcome in patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke, and that MABP should possibly be maintained within such narrow limits, wrote the authors, led by Mads Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesia at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.
The findings come from an analysis of BP data from 365 patients with acute ischemic stroke enrolled in three randomized trials evaluating different strategies for anesthesia. Among those patients, the mean age was approximately 71 years, and about 45% were women.
The investigators looked at a variety of BP-related variables during endovascular therapy to assess their impact on functional outcome, based on modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 90 days.
Having an MABP below 70 mm Hg for a cumulative time of at least 10 minutes substantially increased odds of higher 90-day mRS scores (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.22), according to Dr. Rasmussen and colleagues. The number needed to harm (NNH) at this threshold was 10; in other words, to harm 1 patient, 10 patients are needed with procedural MABP below 70 mm Hg for at least 10 minutes.
Likewise, having an MABP above 90 mm Hg for a cumulated time of at least 45 minutes significantly increased odds of higher 90-day mRS scores, with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.02) and a number needed to harm of 10.
Odds of shifting toward a worse neurologic outcome increased by 62% for every continuous 10 minutes of MABP below 70 mm Hg, and by 8% for every continuous 10 minutes above 90 mm Hg.
The maximum MABP during the procedure was significantly associated with neurologic outcomes in the study, while by contrast, maximum procedural systolic BP was not, according to the investigators.
In general, the study findings suggest that MABP is “more sensitive” than systolic BP when assessing hypotension and hypertension in these patients. However, these findings are subject to a number of limitations, the investigators wrote, including the retrospective nature of the analysis and the selected group of patients enrolled in studies designed to evaluate anesthesia strategies, not hemodynamic management.
“Randomized studies are needed to determine the optimal blood pressure management strategy during endovascular therapy,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Rasmussen reported grant support from the Health Research Foundation of Central Denmark Region and the National Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation; a research award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and personal fees from Abbott Medical Sweden, I4L Innovation for Life, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Zoll.
SOURCE: Rasmussen M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4838.
For patients with acute ischemic stroke, prolonged durations of blood pressure above or below certain thresholds during endovascular therapy may be linked to poor functional outcome, results of a retrospective study suggest.
Mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) lower than 70 mm Hg for 10 minutes or more, or higher than 90 mm Hg for 45 minutes or more, represented “critical thresholds” associated with worse neurologic outcomes, the study authors wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“These results suggest MABP may be a modifiable therapeutic target to prevent or reduce poor functional outcome in patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke, and that MABP should possibly be maintained within such narrow limits, wrote the authors, led by Mads Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesia at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.
The findings come from an analysis of BP data from 365 patients with acute ischemic stroke enrolled in three randomized trials evaluating different strategies for anesthesia. Among those patients, the mean age was approximately 71 years, and about 45% were women.
The investigators looked at a variety of BP-related variables during endovascular therapy to assess their impact on functional outcome, based on modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 90 days.
Having an MABP below 70 mm Hg for a cumulative time of at least 10 minutes substantially increased odds of higher 90-day mRS scores (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.22), according to Dr. Rasmussen and colleagues. The number needed to harm (NNH) at this threshold was 10; in other words, to harm 1 patient, 10 patients are needed with procedural MABP below 70 mm Hg for at least 10 minutes.
Likewise, having an MABP above 90 mm Hg for a cumulated time of at least 45 minutes significantly increased odds of higher 90-day mRS scores, with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.02) and a number needed to harm of 10.
Odds of shifting toward a worse neurologic outcome increased by 62% for every continuous 10 minutes of MABP below 70 mm Hg, and by 8% for every continuous 10 minutes above 90 mm Hg.
The maximum MABP during the procedure was significantly associated with neurologic outcomes in the study, while by contrast, maximum procedural systolic BP was not, according to the investigators.
In general, the study findings suggest that MABP is “more sensitive” than systolic BP when assessing hypotension and hypertension in these patients. However, these findings are subject to a number of limitations, the investigators wrote, including the retrospective nature of the analysis and the selected group of patients enrolled in studies designed to evaluate anesthesia strategies, not hemodynamic management.
“Randomized studies are needed to determine the optimal blood pressure management strategy during endovascular therapy,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Rasmussen reported grant support from the Health Research Foundation of Central Denmark Region and the National Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation; a research award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and personal fees from Abbott Medical Sweden, I4L Innovation for Life, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Zoll.
SOURCE: Rasmussen M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4838.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Wuhan virus: What clinicians need to know
As the Wuhan coronavirus story unfolds, , according to infectious disease experts.
“We are asking that of everyone with fever and respiratory symptoms who comes to our clinics, hospital, or emergency room. It’s a powerful screening tool,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
In addition to fever, common signs of infection include cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. Some patients have had diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The incubation period appears to be up to 2 weeks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
If patients exhibit symptoms and either they or a close contact has returned from China recently, take standard airborne precautions and send specimens – a serum sample, oral and nasal pharyngeal swabs, and lower respiratory tract specimens if available – to the local health department, which will forward them to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing. Turnaround time is 24-48 hours.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in December in association with a live animal market in Wuhan, China, has been implicated in almost 2,000 cases and 56 deaths in that country. Cases have been reported in 13 countries besides China. Five cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed in the United States, all in people recently returned from Wuhan. As the virus spreads in China, however, it’s almost certain more cases will show up in the United States. Travel history is key, Dr. Schaffner and others said.
Plan and rehearse
The first step to prepare is to use the CDC’s Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals to make a written plan specific to your practice to respond to a potential case. The plan must include notifying the local health department, the CDC liaison for testing, and tracking down patient contacts.
“It’s not good enough to just download CDC’s guidance; use it to make your own local plan and know what to do 24/7,” said Daniel Lucey, MD, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
“Know who is on call at the health department on weekends and nights,” he said. Know where the patient is going to be isolated; figure out what to do if there’s more than one, and tests come back positive. Have masks on hand, and rehearse the response. “Make a coronavirus team, and absolutely have the nurses involved,” as well as other providers who may come into contact with a case, he added.
“You want to be able to do as well as your counterparts in Washington state and Chicago,” where the first two U.S. cases emerged. “They were prepared. They knew what to do,” Dr. Lucey said.
Those first two U.S. patients – a man in Everett, Wash., and a Chicago woman – developed symptoms after returning from Wuhan, a city of 11 million just over 400 miles inland from the port city of Shanghai. On Jan. 26 three more cases were confirmed by the CDC, two in California and one in Arizona, and each had recently traveled to Wuhan. All five patients remain hospitalized, and there’s no evidence they spread the infection further. There is also no evidence of human-to-human transmission of other cases exported from China to any other countries, according to the WHO.
WHO declined to declare a global health emergency – a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, in its parlance – on Jan. 23. The step would have triggered travel and trade restrictions in member states, including the United States. For now, at least, the group said it wasn’t warranted at this point.
Fatality rates
The focus right now is China. The outbreak has spread beyond Wuhan to other parts of the country, and there’s evidence of fourth-generation spread.
Transportation into and out of Wuhan and other cities has been curtailed, Lunar New Year festivals have been canceled, and the Shanghai Disneyland has been closed, among other measures taken by Chinese officials.
The government could be taking drastic measures in part to prevent the public criticism it took in the early 2000’s for the delayed response and lack of transparency during the global outbreak of another wildlife market coronavirus epidemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In a press conference Jan. 22, WHO officials commended the government’s containment efforts but did not say they recommended them.
According to WHO, serious cases in China have mostly been in people over 40 years old with significant comorbidities and have skewed towards men. Spread seems to be limited to family members, health care providers, and other close contacts, probably by respiratory droplets. If that pattern holds, WHO officials said, the outbreak is containable.
The fatality rate appears to be around 3%, a good deal lower than the 10% reported for SARS and much lower than the nearly 40% reported for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), another recent coronavirus mutation from the animal trade.
The Wuhan virus fatality rate might drop as milder cases are detected and added to the denominator. “It definitely appears to be less severe than SARS and MERS,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease physician in Pittsburgh and emerging infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
SARS: Lessons learned
In general, the world is much better equipped for coronavirus outbreaks than when SARS, in particular, emerged in 2003.
WHO officials in their press conference lauded China for it openness with the current outbreak, and for isolating and sequencing the virus immediately, which gave the world a diagnostic test in the first days of the outbreak, something that wasn’t available for SARS. China and other countries also are cooperating and working closely to contain the Wuhan virus.
“What we know today might change tomorrow, so we have to keep tuned in to new information, but we learned a lot from SARS,” Dr. Shaffner said. Overall, it’s likely “the impact on the United States of this new coronavirus is going to be trivial,” he predicted.
Dr. Lucey, however, recalled that the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003 started with one missed case. A woman returned asymptomatic from Hong Kong and spread the infection to her family members before she died. Her cause of death wasn’t immediately recognized, nor was the reason her family members were sick, since they hadn’t been to Hong Kong recently.
The infection ultimately spread to more than 200 people, about half of them health care workers. A few people died.
If a virus is sufficiently contagious, “it just takes one. You don’t want to be the one who misses that first patient,” Dr. Lucey said.
Currently, there are no antivirals or vaccines for coronaviruses; researchers are working on both, but for now, care is supportive.
This article was updated with new case numbers on 1/26/20.
As the Wuhan coronavirus story unfolds, , according to infectious disease experts.
“We are asking that of everyone with fever and respiratory symptoms who comes to our clinics, hospital, or emergency room. It’s a powerful screening tool,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
In addition to fever, common signs of infection include cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. Some patients have had diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The incubation period appears to be up to 2 weeks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
If patients exhibit symptoms and either they or a close contact has returned from China recently, take standard airborne precautions and send specimens – a serum sample, oral and nasal pharyngeal swabs, and lower respiratory tract specimens if available – to the local health department, which will forward them to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing. Turnaround time is 24-48 hours.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in December in association with a live animal market in Wuhan, China, has been implicated in almost 2,000 cases and 56 deaths in that country. Cases have been reported in 13 countries besides China. Five cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed in the United States, all in people recently returned from Wuhan. As the virus spreads in China, however, it’s almost certain more cases will show up in the United States. Travel history is key, Dr. Schaffner and others said.
Plan and rehearse
The first step to prepare is to use the CDC’s Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals to make a written plan specific to your practice to respond to a potential case. The plan must include notifying the local health department, the CDC liaison for testing, and tracking down patient contacts.
“It’s not good enough to just download CDC’s guidance; use it to make your own local plan and know what to do 24/7,” said Daniel Lucey, MD, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
“Know who is on call at the health department on weekends and nights,” he said. Know where the patient is going to be isolated; figure out what to do if there’s more than one, and tests come back positive. Have masks on hand, and rehearse the response. “Make a coronavirus team, and absolutely have the nurses involved,” as well as other providers who may come into contact with a case, he added.
“You want to be able to do as well as your counterparts in Washington state and Chicago,” where the first two U.S. cases emerged. “They were prepared. They knew what to do,” Dr. Lucey said.
Those first two U.S. patients – a man in Everett, Wash., and a Chicago woman – developed symptoms after returning from Wuhan, a city of 11 million just over 400 miles inland from the port city of Shanghai. On Jan. 26 three more cases were confirmed by the CDC, two in California and one in Arizona, and each had recently traveled to Wuhan. All five patients remain hospitalized, and there’s no evidence they spread the infection further. There is also no evidence of human-to-human transmission of other cases exported from China to any other countries, according to the WHO.
WHO declined to declare a global health emergency – a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, in its parlance – on Jan. 23. The step would have triggered travel and trade restrictions in member states, including the United States. For now, at least, the group said it wasn’t warranted at this point.
Fatality rates
The focus right now is China. The outbreak has spread beyond Wuhan to other parts of the country, and there’s evidence of fourth-generation spread.
Transportation into and out of Wuhan and other cities has been curtailed, Lunar New Year festivals have been canceled, and the Shanghai Disneyland has been closed, among other measures taken by Chinese officials.
The government could be taking drastic measures in part to prevent the public criticism it took in the early 2000’s for the delayed response and lack of transparency during the global outbreak of another wildlife market coronavirus epidemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In a press conference Jan. 22, WHO officials commended the government’s containment efforts but did not say they recommended them.
According to WHO, serious cases in China have mostly been in people over 40 years old with significant comorbidities and have skewed towards men. Spread seems to be limited to family members, health care providers, and other close contacts, probably by respiratory droplets. If that pattern holds, WHO officials said, the outbreak is containable.
The fatality rate appears to be around 3%, a good deal lower than the 10% reported for SARS and much lower than the nearly 40% reported for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), another recent coronavirus mutation from the animal trade.
The Wuhan virus fatality rate might drop as milder cases are detected and added to the denominator. “It definitely appears to be less severe than SARS and MERS,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease physician in Pittsburgh and emerging infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
SARS: Lessons learned
In general, the world is much better equipped for coronavirus outbreaks than when SARS, in particular, emerged in 2003.
WHO officials in their press conference lauded China for it openness with the current outbreak, and for isolating and sequencing the virus immediately, which gave the world a diagnostic test in the first days of the outbreak, something that wasn’t available for SARS. China and other countries also are cooperating and working closely to contain the Wuhan virus.
“What we know today might change tomorrow, so we have to keep tuned in to new information, but we learned a lot from SARS,” Dr. Shaffner said. Overall, it’s likely “the impact on the United States of this new coronavirus is going to be trivial,” he predicted.
Dr. Lucey, however, recalled that the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003 started with one missed case. A woman returned asymptomatic from Hong Kong and spread the infection to her family members before she died. Her cause of death wasn’t immediately recognized, nor was the reason her family members were sick, since they hadn’t been to Hong Kong recently.
The infection ultimately spread to more than 200 people, about half of them health care workers. A few people died.
If a virus is sufficiently contagious, “it just takes one. You don’t want to be the one who misses that first patient,” Dr. Lucey said.
Currently, there are no antivirals or vaccines for coronaviruses; researchers are working on both, but for now, care is supportive.
This article was updated with new case numbers on 1/26/20.
As the Wuhan coronavirus story unfolds, , according to infectious disease experts.
“We are asking that of everyone with fever and respiratory symptoms who comes to our clinics, hospital, or emergency room. It’s a powerful screening tool,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
In addition to fever, common signs of infection include cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. Some patients have had diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The incubation period appears to be up to 2 weeks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
If patients exhibit symptoms and either they or a close contact has returned from China recently, take standard airborne precautions and send specimens – a serum sample, oral and nasal pharyngeal swabs, and lower respiratory tract specimens if available – to the local health department, which will forward them to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing. Turnaround time is 24-48 hours.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in December in association with a live animal market in Wuhan, China, has been implicated in almost 2,000 cases and 56 deaths in that country. Cases have been reported in 13 countries besides China. Five cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed in the United States, all in people recently returned from Wuhan. As the virus spreads in China, however, it’s almost certain more cases will show up in the United States. Travel history is key, Dr. Schaffner and others said.
Plan and rehearse
The first step to prepare is to use the CDC’s Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals to make a written plan specific to your practice to respond to a potential case. The plan must include notifying the local health department, the CDC liaison for testing, and tracking down patient contacts.
“It’s not good enough to just download CDC’s guidance; use it to make your own local plan and know what to do 24/7,” said Daniel Lucey, MD, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
“Know who is on call at the health department on weekends and nights,” he said. Know where the patient is going to be isolated; figure out what to do if there’s more than one, and tests come back positive. Have masks on hand, and rehearse the response. “Make a coronavirus team, and absolutely have the nurses involved,” as well as other providers who may come into contact with a case, he added.
“You want to be able to do as well as your counterparts in Washington state and Chicago,” where the first two U.S. cases emerged. “They were prepared. They knew what to do,” Dr. Lucey said.
Those first two U.S. patients – a man in Everett, Wash., and a Chicago woman – developed symptoms after returning from Wuhan, a city of 11 million just over 400 miles inland from the port city of Shanghai. On Jan. 26 three more cases were confirmed by the CDC, two in California and one in Arizona, and each had recently traveled to Wuhan. All five patients remain hospitalized, and there’s no evidence they spread the infection further. There is also no evidence of human-to-human transmission of other cases exported from China to any other countries, according to the WHO.
WHO declined to declare a global health emergency – a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, in its parlance – on Jan. 23. The step would have triggered travel and trade restrictions in member states, including the United States. For now, at least, the group said it wasn’t warranted at this point.
Fatality rates
The focus right now is China. The outbreak has spread beyond Wuhan to other parts of the country, and there’s evidence of fourth-generation spread.
Transportation into and out of Wuhan and other cities has been curtailed, Lunar New Year festivals have been canceled, and the Shanghai Disneyland has been closed, among other measures taken by Chinese officials.
The government could be taking drastic measures in part to prevent the public criticism it took in the early 2000’s for the delayed response and lack of transparency during the global outbreak of another wildlife market coronavirus epidemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In a press conference Jan. 22, WHO officials commended the government’s containment efforts but did not say they recommended them.
According to WHO, serious cases in China have mostly been in people over 40 years old with significant comorbidities and have skewed towards men. Spread seems to be limited to family members, health care providers, and other close contacts, probably by respiratory droplets. If that pattern holds, WHO officials said, the outbreak is containable.
The fatality rate appears to be around 3%, a good deal lower than the 10% reported for SARS and much lower than the nearly 40% reported for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), another recent coronavirus mutation from the animal trade.
The Wuhan virus fatality rate might drop as milder cases are detected and added to the denominator. “It definitely appears to be less severe than SARS and MERS,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease physician in Pittsburgh and emerging infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
SARS: Lessons learned
In general, the world is much better equipped for coronavirus outbreaks than when SARS, in particular, emerged in 2003.
WHO officials in their press conference lauded China for it openness with the current outbreak, and for isolating and sequencing the virus immediately, which gave the world a diagnostic test in the first days of the outbreak, something that wasn’t available for SARS. China and other countries also are cooperating and working closely to contain the Wuhan virus.
“What we know today might change tomorrow, so we have to keep tuned in to new information, but we learned a lot from SARS,” Dr. Shaffner said. Overall, it’s likely “the impact on the United States of this new coronavirus is going to be trivial,” he predicted.
Dr. Lucey, however, recalled that the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003 started with one missed case. A woman returned asymptomatic from Hong Kong and spread the infection to her family members before she died. Her cause of death wasn’t immediately recognized, nor was the reason her family members were sick, since they hadn’t been to Hong Kong recently.
The infection ultimately spread to more than 200 people, about half of them health care workers. A few people died.
If a virus is sufficiently contagious, “it just takes one. You don’t want to be the one who misses that first patient,” Dr. Lucey said.
Currently, there are no antivirals or vaccines for coronaviruses; researchers are working on both, but for now, care is supportive.
This article was updated with new case numbers on 1/26/20.
FDA: Cybersecurity vulnerabilities identified in GE Healthcare monitoring devices
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that certain GE Healthcare Clinical Information Central Stations and Telemetry Servers have cybersecurity vulnerabilities that may introduce risk to monitored patients.
silence alarms, generate false alarms, and interfere with alarms of patient monitors connected to these devices, according to an “Urgent Medical Device Correction” letter issued by GE Healthcare in November 2019.
The affected devices are the ApexPro Telemetry Server and CARESCAPE Telemetry Server, the CARESCAPE Central Station (CSCS) version 1, and the CIC Pro Clinical Information Center Central Station version 1. These devices are used in health care facilities for displaying information, such as the patient’s physiological parameters, and for monitoring patient status from a central location in a facility.
No adverse events related to the vulnerabilities have been reported to the FDA. Health care facility staff should update their devices when GE Healthcare issues a software patch that addresses the vulnerability, separate the network connecting patient monitors using affected devices from the rest of the hospital, and use firewalls and other means to minimize the risk of remote or local network attacks.
“The FDA takes reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in medical devices seriously and will continue to work with GE Healthcare as the firm develops software patches to correct these vulnerabilities as soon as possible. The FDA will continue to assess new information concerning the vulnerabilities and will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available,” the FDA said in the Safety Communication.