User login
Timing of renal-replacement therapy for AKI in the ICU
Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in the ICU is associated with high mortality. It is hypothesized that earlier initiation of RRT may benefit patients by controlling fluid overload and reducing metabolic stress caused by electrolyte and acid-base imbalances. However, prior studies have been conflicting, with the IDEAL-ICU study (2018) demonstrating no improvement in 90-day mortality with early RRT in septic shock.
Study design: Open-label randomized controlled trial.
Setting: 168 hospitals in 15 countries.
Synopsis: Of ICU patients with severe AKI, 3,019 were randomized to either early or standard initiation of RRT. Early RRT was defined as occurring within 12 hours of eligibility; in the standard-therapy group, RRT was delayed until specifically indicated or if there was no improvement after 72 hours. Those needing immediate renal replacement or deemed likely to recover without need for RRT were excluded in order to study only those in whom ideal timing of dialysis was uncertain. There was no difference in 90-day mortality between the groups (43.9% vs. 43.7%; P = .92). Early initiation did not improve length of ICU stay, ventilator-free days, days out of the hospital, or quality of life. The early-initiation patients experienced more adverse events related to RRT and were more likely to have continued dependence on RRT at 90 days (10.4% vs. 6.0% in standard initiation). Of note, approximately 40% of those randomized to standard initiation never required RRT.
Bottom line: This large, multicenter, well-conducted trial demonstrates no benefit for early initiation of RRT in critically ill patients.
Citation: STARRT-AKI investigators. Timing of initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:240-51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000741.
Dr. Lee is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.
Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in the ICU is associated with high mortality. It is hypothesized that earlier initiation of RRT may benefit patients by controlling fluid overload and reducing metabolic stress caused by electrolyte and acid-base imbalances. However, prior studies have been conflicting, with the IDEAL-ICU study (2018) demonstrating no improvement in 90-day mortality with early RRT in septic shock.
Study design: Open-label randomized controlled trial.
Setting: 168 hospitals in 15 countries.
Synopsis: Of ICU patients with severe AKI, 3,019 were randomized to either early or standard initiation of RRT. Early RRT was defined as occurring within 12 hours of eligibility; in the standard-therapy group, RRT was delayed until specifically indicated or if there was no improvement after 72 hours. Those needing immediate renal replacement or deemed likely to recover without need for RRT were excluded in order to study only those in whom ideal timing of dialysis was uncertain. There was no difference in 90-day mortality between the groups (43.9% vs. 43.7%; P = .92). Early initiation did not improve length of ICU stay, ventilator-free days, days out of the hospital, or quality of life. The early-initiation patients experienced more adverse events related to RRT and were more likely to have continued dependence on RRT at 90 days (10.4% vs. 6.0% in standard initiation). Of note, approximately 40% of those randomized to standard initiation never required RRT.
Bottom line: This large, multicenter, well-conducted trial demonstrates no benefit for early initiation of RRT in critically ill patients.
Citation: STARRT-AKI investigators. Timing of initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:240-51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000741.
Dr. Lee is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.
Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in the ICU is associated with high mortality. It is hypothesized that earlier initiation of RRT may benefit patients by controlling fluid overload and reducing metabolic stress caused by electrolyte and acid-base imbalances. However, prior studies have been conflicting, with the IDEAL-ICU study (2018) demonstrating no improvement in 90-day mortality with early RRT in septic shock.
Study design: Open-label randomized controlled trial.
Setting: 168 hospitals in 15 countries.
Synopsis: Of ICU patients with severe AKI, 3,019 were randomized to either early or standard initiation of RRT. Early RRT was defined as occurring within 12 hours of eligibility; in the standard-therapy group, RRT was delayed until specifically indicated or if there was no improvement after 72 hours. Those needing immediate renal replacement or deemed likely to recover without need for RRT were excluded in order to study only those in whom ideal timing of dialysis was uncertain. There was no difference in 90-day mortality between the groups (43.9% vs. 43.7%; P = .92). Early initiation did not improve length of ICU stay, ventilator-free days, days out of the hospital, or quality of life. The early-initiation patients experienced more adverse events related to RRT and were more likely to have continued dependence on RRT at 90 days (10.4% vs. 6.0% in standard initiation). Of note, approximately 40% of those randomized to standard initiation never required RRT.
Bottom line: This large, multicenter, well-conducted trial demonstrates no benefit for early initiation of RRT in critically ill patients.
Citation: STARRT-AKI investigators. Timing of initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:240-51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000741.
Dr. Lee is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.
Advanced CKD doesn’t derail empagliflozin in EMPEROR-preserved
More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.
The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.
Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
An end to ‘renalism’
“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).
“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.
EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.
In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.
These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.
“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.
In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin
Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.
In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.
“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.
At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.
Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.
EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.
EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.
The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.
Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
An end to ‘renalism’
“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).
“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.
EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.
In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.
These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.
“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.
In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin
Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.
In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.
“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.
At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.
Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.
EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.
EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.
The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.
Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
An end to ‘renalism’
“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).
“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.
EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.
In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.
These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.
“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.
In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin
Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.
In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.
“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.
At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.
Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.
EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.
EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM KIDNEY WEEK 2021
Growing evidence supports repurposing antidepressants to treat COVID-19
Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.
A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.
“We can’t tell if the drugs are causing these effects, but the statistical analysis is showing significant association. There’s power in the numbers,” Marina Sirota, PhD, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in a statement.
The study was published online Nov. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
Data-driven approach
, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.
When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.
Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).
“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.
“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.
“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.
Urgent need
The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.
Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.
“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.
“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.
The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.
A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.
“We can’t tell if the drugs are causing these effects, but the statistical analysis is showing significant association. There’s power in the numbers,” Marina Sirota, PhD, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in a statement.
The study was published online Nov. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
Data-driven approach
, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.
When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.
Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).
“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.
“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.
“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.
Urgent need
The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.
Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.
“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.
“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.
The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.
A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.
“We can’t tell if the drugs are causing these effects, but the statistical analysis is showing significant association. There’s power in the numbers,” Marina Sirota, PhD, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in a statement.
The study was published online Nov. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
Data-driven approach
, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.
When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.
Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).
“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.
“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.
“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.
Urgent need
The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.
Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.
“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.
“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.
The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Empagliflozin a winner in challenging arena of stabilized acute HF
The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.
Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.
Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.
There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”
EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.
The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”
Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.
“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”
EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.
At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.
The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.
Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.
They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.
Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.
Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.
There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”
EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.
The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”
Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.
“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”
EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.
At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.
The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.
Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.
They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.
Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.
Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.
There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”
EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.
The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”
Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.
“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”
EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.
At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.
The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.
Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.
They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2021
Faster testing possible for secondary ICU infections
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has given added impetus for metagenomic testing using nanopore sequencing to progress from a research tool to routine clinical application. A study led by researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust has shown the potential for clinical metagenomics to become a same-day test for identifying secondary infection in ventilated ICU patients. Getting results in hours rather than days would help to ensure rapid treatment with the correct antibiotic, minimize unnecessary prescriptions, and thus reduce the growing menace of antimicrobial resistance.
‘SARS-CoV-2 has put considerable strain on ICUs’
The researchers point out that the setting of an intensive care unit involves frequent staff-patient contact that imparts a risk of secondary or nosocomial infection. In addition, invasive ventilation may introduce organisms into the lungs and lead to ventilator-acquired pneumonia. This carries a high mortality and is responsible for up to 70% of antimicrobial prescribing, with current guidelines requiring empiric antibiotics pending culture results, which typically takes 2-4 days.
Many of these infection problems worsened during SARS-CoV-2. Expanded critical care capacity raised the risk of nosocomial infections, with attendant increased antimicrobial prescriptions and the threat of antimicrobial resistance. In addition, treatment of COVID-19 patients with steroid therapy potentially exacerbates bacterial or fungal infections.
The researchers, from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in collaboration with the Quadram Institute in Norwich, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Viapath, the U.K.’s largest independent pathology service provider, noted that the pandemic thus reinforced “a need for rapid comprehensive diagnostics to improve antimicrobial stewardship and help prevent emergence and transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms.”
“As soon as the pandemic started, our scientists realized there would be a benefit to sequencing genomes of all bacteria and fungi causing infection in COVID-19 patients while on ICU,” said Professor Jonathan Edgeworth, who led the research team.
“Within a few weeks we showed it can diagnose secondary infection, target antibiotic treatment, and detect outbreaks much earlier than current technologies – all from a single sample.”
Proof-of-concept study
The team performed a proof-of-concept study of nanopore metagenomics sequencing – a type of DNA sequencing that allows direct rapid unbiased detection of all organisms present in a clinical sample – on 43 surplus respiratory samples from 34 intubated COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary bacterial or fungal pneumonia. Patients were drawn from seven ICUs at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London over a 9-week period between April 11 and June 15 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19.
Their median age was 52, 70% were male, 47% White, and 44% Black or minority ethnicities. Median length of stay was 32 days and mortality 24%. Samples sent for metagenomic analysis and culture included 10 bronchoalveolar lavages, 6 tracheal aspirates, and 27 non-direct bronchoalveolar lavages.
The study, published in Genome Medicine, showed that an 8-hour metagenomics workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75% to 99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57% to 96%) for bacterial identification, based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively.
The main Gram-negative bacteria identified were Klebsiella spp. (53%), Citrobacter spp. (15%), and E coli (9%). The main Gram-positive bacteria were S aureus (9%), C striatum (24%) and Enterococcus spp. (12%). In addition, C albicans, other Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. were cultured from 38%, 15%, and 9% of patients, respectively.
In every case, the initial antibiotics prescribed according to prevailing guideline recommendations would have been modified by metagenomic sequencing demonstrating the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales.
Next day results of sequencing also detected Aspergillus fumigatus in four samples, with results 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for both the four positive and 39 negative samples. It identified two multi-drug–resistant outbreaks, one involving K pneumoniae ST307 affecting four patients and one a C striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.
Thus, a single sample can provide enough genetic sequence data to compare pathogen genomes with a database and accurately identify patients carrying the same strain, enabling early detection of outbreaks. This is the first time this combined benefit of a single test has been demonstrated, the team say.
Gordon Sanghera, CEO of Oxford Nanopore commented that “rapidly characterizing co-infections for precision prescribing is a vital next step for both COVID-19 patients and respiratory disease in general.”
Dr. Andrew Page of the Quadram Institute said: “We have been working on metagenomics technology for the last 7 years. It is great to see it applied to patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
He said in an interview: “The pandemic has accelerated the transition from using sequencing purely in research labs to using it in the clinic to rapidly provide clinicians with information they can use to improve outcomes for patients.”
Potential to inform antimicrobial prescribing and infection control
“Clinical metagenomic testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance,” the researchers say.
The technology “could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections.” It has the potential to improve initial targeted antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions, as well as help rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of multi-drug–resistant pathogens.
Professor Edgeworth told this news organization that since the study, “secondary bacterial and fungal infections have increased, perhaps due to immunomodulatory treatments or just the length of time patients spend on ICU recovering from COVID-19. This makes rapid diagnosis even more important to ensure patients get more targeted antibiotics earlier, rather than relying on generic guidelines.”
The team “are planning to move respiratory metagenomics into pilot service under our Trust’s quality improvement framework,” he revealed. This will enable them to gather data on patient benefits.
“We also need to see how clinicians use these tests to improve antibiotic treatment, to stop antibiotics when not needed or to identify outbreaks earlier, and then how that translates into tangible benefits for individual patients and the wider NHS.”
He predicts that the technique will revolutionize the approach to prevention and treatment of serious infection in ICUs, and it is now planned to offer it as a clinical service for COVID-19 and influenza patients during the coming winter.
In addition, he said: “It can be equally applied to other samples such as tissue fluids and biopsies, including those removed at operation. It therefore has potential to impact on diagnostics for many clinical services, particularly if the progress is maintained at the current pace.”
This article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has given added impetus for metagenomic testing using nanopore sequencing to progress from a research tool to routine clinical application. A study led by researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust has shown the potential for clinical metagenomics to become a same-day test for identifying secondary infection in ventilated ICU patients. Getting results in hours rather than days would help to ensure rapid treatment with the correct antibiotic, minimize unnecessary prescriptions, and thus reduce the growing menace of antimicrobial resistance.
‘SARS-CoV-2 has put considerable strain on ICUs’
The researchers point out that the setting of an intensive care unit involves frequent staff-patient contact that imparts a risk of secondary or nosocomial infection. In addition, invasive ventilation may introduce organisms into the lungs and lead to ventilator-acquired pneumonia. This carries a high mortality and is responsible for up to 70% of antimicrobial prescribing, with current guidelines requiring empiric antibiotics pending culture results, which typically takes 2-4 days.
Many of these infection problems worsened during SARS-CoV-2. Expanded critical care capacity raised the risk of nosocomial infections, with attendant increased antimicrobial prescriptions and the threat of antimicrobial resistance. In addition, treatment of COVID-19 patients with steroid therapy potentially exacerbates bacterial or fungal infections.
The researchers, from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in collaboration with the Quadram Institute in Norwich, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Viapath, the U.K.’s largest independent pathology service provider, noted that the pandemic thus reinforced “a need for rapid comprehensive diagnostics to improve antimicrobial stewardship and help prevent emergence and transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms.”
“As soon as the pandemic started, our scientists realized there would be a benefit to sequencing genomes of all bacteria and fungi causing infection in COVID-19 patients while on ICU,” said Professor Jonathan Edgeworth, who led the research team.
“Within a few weeks we showed it can diagnose secondary infection, target antibiotic treatment, and detect outbreaks much earlier than current technologies – all from a single sample.”
Proof-of-concept study
The team performed a proof-of-concept study of nanopore metagenomics sequencing – a type of DNA sequencing that allows direct rapid unbiased detection of all organisms present in a clinical sample – on 43 surplus respiratory samples from 34 intubated COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary bacterial or fungal pneumonia. Patients were drawn from seven ICUs at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London over a 9-week period between April 11 and June 15 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19.
Their median age was 52, 70% were male, 47% White, and 44% Black or minority ethnicities. Median length of stay was 32 days and mortality 24%. Samples sent for metagenomic analysis and culture included 10 bronchoalveolar lavages, 6 tracheal aspirates, and 27 non-direct bronchoalveolar lavages.
The study, published in Genome Medicine, showed that an 8-hour metagenomics workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75% to 99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57% to 96%) for bacterial identification, based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively.
The main Gram-negative bacteria identified were Klebsiella spp. (53%), Citrobacter spp. (15%), and E coli (9%). The main Gram-positive bacteria were S aureus (9%), C striatum (24%) and Enterococcus spp. (12%). In addition, C albicans, other Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. were cultured from 38%, 15%, and 9% of patients, respectively.
In every case, the initial antibiotics prescribed according to prevailing guideline recommendations would have been modified by metagenomic sequencing demonstrating the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales.
Next day results of sequencing also detected Aspergillus fumigatus in four samples, with results 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for both the four positive and 39 negative samples. It identified two multi-drug–resistant outbreaks, one involving K pneumoniae ST307 affecting four patients and one a C striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.
Thus, a single sample can provide enough genetic sequence data to compare pathogen genomes with a database and accurately identify patients carrying the same strain, enabling early detection of outbreaks. This is the first time this combined benefit of a single test has been demonstrated, the team say.
Gordon Sanghera, CEO of Oxford Nanopore commented that “rapidly characterizing co-infections for precision prescribing is a vital next step for both COVID-19 patients and respiratory disease in general.”
Dr. Andrew Page of the Quadram Institute said: “We have been working on metagenomics technology for the last 7 years. It is great to see it applied to patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
He said in an interview: “The pandemic has accelerated the transition from using sequencing purely in research labs to using it in the clinic to rapidly provide clinicians with information they can use to improve outcomes for patients.”
Potential to inform antimicrobial prescribing and infection control
“Clinical metagenomic testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance,” the researchers say.
The technology “could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections.” It has the potential to improve initial targeted antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions, as well as help rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of multi-drug–resistant pathogens.
Professor Edgeworth told this news organization that since the study, “secondary bacterial and fungal infections have increased, perhaps due to immunomodulatory treatments or just the length of time patients spend on ICU recovering from COVID-19. This makes rapid diagnosis even more important to ensure patients get more targeted antibiotics earlier, rather than relying on generic guidelines.”
The team “are planning to move respiratory metagenomics into pilot service under our Trust’s quality improvement framework,” he revealed. This will enable them to gather data on patient benefits.
“We also need to see how clinicians use these tests to improve antibiotic treatment, to stop antibiotics when not needed or to identify outbreaks earlier, and then how that translates into tangible benefits for individual patients and the wider NHS.”
He predicts that the technique will revolutionize the approach to prevention and treatment of serious infection in ICUs, and it is now planned to offer it as a clinical service for COVID-19 and influenza patients during the coming winter.
In addition, he said: “It can be equally applied to other samples such as tissue fluids and biopsies, including those removed at operation. It therefore has potential to impact on diagnostics for many clinical services, particularly if the progress is maintained at the current pace.”
This article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has given added impetus for metagenomic testing using nanopore sequencing to progress from a research tool to routine clinical application. A study led by researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust has shown the potential for clinical metagenomics to become a same-day test for identifying secondary infection in ventilated ICU patients. Getting results in hours rather than days would help to ensure rapid treatment with the correct antibiotic, minimize unnecessary prescriptions, and thus reduce the growing menace of antimicrobial resistance.
‘SARS-CoV-2 has put considerable strain on ICUs’
The researchers point out that the setting of an intensive care unit involves frequent staff-patient contact that imparts a risk of secondary or nosocomial infection. In addition, invasive ventilation may introduce organisms into the lungs and lead to ventilator-acquired pneumonia. This carries a high mortality and is responsible for up to 70% of antimicrobial prescribing, with current guidelines requiring empiric antibiotics pending culture results, which typically takes 2-4 days.
Many of these infection problems worsened during SARS-CoV-2. Expanded critical care capacity raised the risk of nosocomial infections, with attendant increased antimicrobial prescriptions and the threat of antimicrobial resistance. In addition, treatment of COVID-19 patients with steroid therapy potentially exacerbates bacterial or fungal infections.
The researchers, from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in collaboration with the Quadram Institute in Norwich, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Viapath, the U.K.’s largest independent pathology service provider, noted that the pandemic thus reinforced “a need for rapid comprehensive diagnostics to improve antimicrobial stewardship and help prevent emergence and transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms.”
“As soon as the pandemic started, our scientists realized there would be a benefit to sequencing genomes of all bacteria and fungi causing infection in COVID-19 patients while on ICU,” said Professor Jonathan Edgeworth, who led the research team.
“Within a few weeks we showed it can diagnose secondary infection, target antibiotic treatment, and detect outbreaks much earlier than current technologies – all from a single sample.”
Proof-of-concept study
The team performed a proof-of-concept study of nanopore metagenomics sequencing – a type of DNA sequencing that allows direct rapid unbiased detection of all organisms present in a clinical sample – on 43 surplus respiratory samples from 34 intubated COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary bacterial or fungal pneumonia. Patients were drawn from seven ICUs at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London over a 9-week period between April 11 and June 15 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19.
Their median age was 52, 70% were male, 47% White, and 44% Black or minority ethnicities. Median length of stay was 32 days and mortality 24%. Samples sent for metagenomic analysis and culture included 10 bronchoalveolar lavages, 6 tracheal aspirates, and 27 non-direct bronchoalveolar lavages.
The study, published in Genome Medicine, showed that an 8-hour metagenomics workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75% to 99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57% to 96%) for bacterial identification, based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively.
The main Gram-negative bacteria identified were Klebsiella spp. (53%), Citrobacter spp. (15%), and E coli (9%). The main Gram-positive bacteria were S aureus (9%), C striatum (24%) and Enterococcus spp. (12%). In addition, C albicans, other Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. were cultured from 38%, 15%, and 9% of patients, respectively.
In every case, the initial antibiotics prescribed according to prevailing guideline recommendations would have been modified by metagenomic sequencing demonstrating the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales.
Next day results of sequencing also detected Aspergillus fumigatus in four samples, with results 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for both the four positive and 39 negative samples. It identified two multi-drug–resistant outbreaks, one involving K pneumoniae ST307 affecting four patients and one a C striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.
Thus, a single sample can provide enough genetic sequence data to compare pathogen genomes with a database and accurately identify patients carrying the same strain, enabling early detection of outbreaks. This is the first time this combined benefit of a single test has been demonstrated, the team say.
Gordon Sanghera, CEO of Oxford Nanopore commented that “rapidly characterizing co-infections for precision prescribing is a vital next step for both COVID-19 patients and respiratory disease in general.”
Dr. Andrew Page of the Quadram Institute said: “We have been working on metagenomics technology for the last 7 years. It is great to see it applied to patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
He said in an interview: “The pandemic has accelerated the transition from using sequencing purely in research labs to using it in the clinic to rapidly provide clinicians with information they can use to improve outcomes for patients.”
Potential to inform antimicrobial prescribing and infection control
“Clinical metagenomic testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance,” the researchers say.
The technology “could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections.” It has the potential to improve initial targeted antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions, as well as help rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of multi-drug–resistant pathogens.
Professor Edgeworth told this news organization that since the study, “secondary bacterial and fungal infections have increased, perhaps due to immunomodulatory treatments or just the length of time patients spend on ICU recovering from COVID-19. This makes rapid diagnosis even more important to ensure patients get more targeted antibiotics earlier, rather than relying on generic guidelines.”
The team “are planning to move respiratory metagenomics into pilot service under our Trust’s quality improvement framework,” he revealed. This will enable them to gather data on patient benefits.
“We also need to see how clinicians use these tests to improve antibiotic treatment, to stop antibiotics when not needed or to identify outbreaks earlier, and then how that translates into tangible benefits for individual patients and the wider NHS.”
He predicts that the technique will revolutionize the approach to prevention and treatment of serious infection in ICUs, and it is now planned to offer it as a clinical service for COVID-19 and influenza patients during the coming winter.
In addition, he said: “It can be equally applied to other samples such as tissue fluids and biopsies, including those removed at operation. It therefore has potential to impact on diagnostics for many clinical services, particularly if the progress is maintained at the current pace.”
This article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.
Hospitalists helped plan COVID-19 field hospitals
‘It’s a great thing to be overprepared’
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic’s terrifying first wave in the spring of 2020, dozens of hospitals in high-incidence areas either planned or opened temporary, emergency field hospitals to cover anticipated demand for beds beyond the capacity of local permanent hospitals.
Chastened by images of overwhelmed health care systems in Northern Italy and other hard-hit areas,1 the planners used available modeling tools and estimates for projecting maximum potential need in worst-case scenarios. Some of these temporary hospitals never opened. Others opened in convention centers, parking garages, or parking lot tents, and ended up being used to a lesser degree than the worst-case scenarios.
But those who participated in the planning – including, in many cases, hospitalists – believe they created alternate care site manuals that could be quickly revived in the event of future COVID surges or other, similar crises. Better to plan for too much, they say, than not plan for enough.
Field hospitals or alternate care sites are defined in a recent journal article in Prehospital Disaster Medicine as “locations that can be converted to provide either inpatient and/or outpatient health services when existing facilities are compromised by a hazard impact or the volume of patients exceeds available capacity and/or capabilities.”2
The lead author of that report, Sue Anne Bell, PhD, FNP-BC, a disaster expert and assistant professor of nursing at the University of Michigan (UM), was one of five members of the leadership team for planning UM’s field hospital. They used an organizational unit structure based on the U.S. military’s staffing structure, with their work organized around six units of planning: personnel and labor, security, clinical operations, logistics and supply, planning and training, and communications. This team planned a 519-bed step-down care facility, the Michigan Medicine Field Hospital, for a 73,000-foot indoor track and performance facility at the university, three miles from UM’s main hospital. The aim was to provide safe care in a resource-limited environment.
“We were prepared, but the need never materialized as the peak of COVID cases started to subside,” Dr. Bell said. The team was ready to open within days using a “T-Minus” framework of days remaining on an official countdown clock. But when the need and deadlines kept getting pushed back, that gave them more time to develop clearer procedures.
Two Michigan Medicine hospitalists, Christopher Smith, MD, and David Paje, MD, MPH, both professors at UM’s medical school, were intimately involved in the process. “I was the medical director for the respiratory care unit that was opened for COVID patients, so I was pulled in to assist in the field hospital planning,” said Dr. Smith.
Dr. Paje was director of the short-stay unit and had been a medical officer in the U.S. Army, with training in how to set up military field hospitals. He credits that background as helpful for UM’s COVID field hospital planning, along with his experience in hospital medicine operations.
“We expected that these patients would need the expertise of hospitalists, who had quickly become familiar with the peculiarities of the new disease. That played a role in the decisions we made. Hospitalists were at the front lines of COVID care and had unique clinical insights about managing those with severe disease,” Dr. Paje added.
“When we started, the projections were dire. You don’t want to believe something like that is going to happen. When COVID started to cool off, it was more of a relief to us than anything else,” Dr. Smith said. “Still, it was a very worthwhile exercise. At the end of the day, we put together a comprehensive guide, which is ready for the next crisis.”
Baltimore builds a convention center hospital
A COVID-19 field hospital was planned and executed at an exhibit hall in the Baltimore Convention Center, starting in March 2020 under the leadership of Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist Eric Howell, MD, MHM, who eventually handed over responsibilities as chief medical officer when he assumed the position of CEO for the Society of Hospital Medicine in July of that year.
Hopkins collaborated with the University of Maryland health system and state leaders, including the Secretary of Health, to open a 252-bed temporary facility, which at its peak carried a census of 48 patients, with no on-site mortality or cardiac arrests, before it was closed in June 2021 – ready to reopen if necessary. It also served as Baltimore’s major site for polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 testing, vaccinations, and monoclonal antibody infusions, along with medical research.
“My belief at the time we started was that my entire 20-year career as a hospitalist had prepared me for the challenge of opening a COVID field hospital,” Dr. Howell said. “I had learned how to build clinical programs. The difference was that instead of months and years to build a program, we only had a few weeks.”
His first request was to bring on an associate medical director for the field hospital, Melinda E. Kantsiper, MD, a hospitalist and director of clinical operations in the Division of Hospital Medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview. She became the field hospital’s CMO when Dr. Howell moved to SHM. “As hospitalists, we are trained to care for the patient in front of us while at the same time creating systems that can adjust to rapidly changing circumstances,” Dr. Kantsiper said. “We did what was asked and set up a field hospital that cared for a total of 1,500 COVID patients.”
Hospitalists have the tools that are needed for this work, and shouldn’t be reluctant to contribute to field hospital planning, she said. “This was a real eye-opener for me. Eric explained to me that hospitalists really practice acute care medicine, which doesn’t have to be within the four walls of a hospital.”
The Baltimore field hospital has been a fantastic experience, Dr. Kantsiper added. “But it’s not a building designed for health care delivery.” For the right group of providers, the experience of working in a temporary facility such as this can be positive and exhilarating. “But we need to make sure we take care of our staff. It takes a toll. How we keep them safe – physically and emotionally – has to be top of mind,” she said.
The leaders at Hopkins Medicine and their collaborators truly engaged with the field hospital’s mission, Dr. Howell added.
“They gave us a lot of autonomy and helped us break down barriers. They gave us the political capital to say proper PPE was absolutely essential. As hard and devastating as the pandemic has been, one take-away is that we showed that we can be more flexible and elastic in response to actual needs than we used to think.”
Range of challenges
Among the questions that need to be answered by a field hospital’s planners, the first is ‘where to put it?’ The answer is, hopefully, someplace not too far away, large enough, with ready access to supplies and intake. The next question is ‘who is the patient?’ Clinicians must determine who goes to the field hospital versus who stays at the standing hospital. How sick should these patients be? And when do they need to go back to the permanent hospital? Can staff be trained to recognize when patients in the field hospital are starting to decompensate? The EPIC Deterioration Index3 is a proprietary prediction model that was used by more than a hundred hospitals during the pandemic.
The hospitalist team may develop specific inclusion and exclusion criteria – for example, don’t admit patients who are receiving oxygen therapy above a certain threshold or who are hemodynamically unstable. These criteria should reflect the capacity of the field hospital and the needs of the permanent hospital. At Michigan, as at other field hospital sites, the goal was to offer a step-down or postacute setting for patients with COVID-19 who were too sick to return home but didn’t need acute or ICU-level care, thereby freeing up beds at the permanent hospital for patients who were sicker.
Other questions: What is the process for admissions and discharges? How will patients be transported? What kind of staffing is needed, and what levels of care will be provided? What about rehabilitation services, or palliative care? What about patients with substance abuse or psychiatric comorbidities?
“Are we going to do paper charting? How will that work out for long-term documentation and billing?” Dr. Bell said. A clear reporting structure and communication pathways are essential. Among the other operational processes to address, outlined in Dr. Bell’s article, are orientation and training, PPE donning and doffing procedures, the code or rapid response team, patient and staff food and nutrition, infection control protocols, pharmacy services, access to radiology, rounding procedures, staff support, and the morgue.
One other issue that shouldn’t be overlooked is health equity in the field hospital. “Providing safe and equitable care should be the focus. Thinking who goes to the field hospital should be done within a health equity framework,” Dr. Bell said.4 She also wonders if field hospital planners are sharing their experience with colleagues across the country and developing more collaborative relationships with other hospitals in their communities.
“Field hospitals can be different things,” Dr. Bell said. “The important take-home is it doesn’t have to be in a tent or a parking garage, which can be suboptimal.” In many cases, it may be better to focus on finding unused space within the hospital – whether a lobby, staff lounge, or unoccupied unit – closer to personnel, supplies, pharmacy, and the like. “I think the pandemic showed us how unprepared we were as a health care system, and how much more we need to do in preparation for future crises.”
Limits to the temporary hospital
In New York City, which had the country’s worst COVID-19 outbreak during the first surge in the spring of 2020, a 1,000-bed field hospital was opened at the Jacob Javits Center in March 2020 and closed that June. “I was in the field hospital early, in March and April, when our hospitals were temporarily overrun,” said hospitalist Mona Krouss, MD, FACP, CPPS, NYC Health + Hospitals’ director of patient safety. “My role was to figure out how to get patients on our medical floors into these field hospitals, with responsibility for helping to revise admission criteria,” she said.
“No one knew how horrible it would become. This was so unanticipated, so difficult to operationalize. What they were able to create was amazing, but there were just too many barriers to have it work smoothly,” Dr. Krouss said.
“The military stepped in, and they helped us so much. We wouldn’t have been able to survive without their help.” But there is only so much a field hospital can do to provide acute medical care. Later, military medical teams shifted to roles in temporary units inside the permanent hospitals. “They came to the hospital wanting to be deployed,” she said.
“We could only send patients [to the field hospital] who were fairly stable, and choosing the right ones was difficult.” Dr. Krouss said. In the end, not a lot of COVID-19 patients from NYC Health + Hospitals ended up going to the Javits Center, in part because the paperwork and logistics of getting someone in was a barrier, Dr. Krouss said. A process was established for referring doctors to call a phone number and speak with a New York City Department of Health employee to go through the criteria for admission to the field hospital.
“That could take up to 30 minutes before getting approval. Then you had to go through the same process all over again for sign-out to another physician, and then register the patient with a special bar code. Then you had to arrange ambulance transfer. Doctors didn’t want to go through all of that – everybody was too busy,” she explained. Hospitalists have since worked on streamlining the criteria. “Now we have a good process for the future. We made it more seamless,” she noted.
Susan Lee, DO, MBA, hospitalist and chief medical officer for Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nev., helped to plan an alternate care site in anticipation of up to a thousand COVID patients in her community – far beyond the scope of the existing hospitals. Hospitalists were involved the entire time in planning, design of the unit, design of staffing models, care protocols, and the like, working through an evidence-based medical committee and a COVID-19 provider task force for the Renown Health System.
“Because of a history of fires and earthquakes in this region, we had an emergency planning infrastructure in place. We put the field hospital on the first and second floors of a parking garage, with built-in negative pressure capacity. We also built space for staff break rooms and desk space. It took 10 days to build the hospital, thanks to some very talented people in management and facility design,” Dr. Lee said.
Then, the hospital was locked up and sat empty for 7 months, until the surge in December 2020, when Reno was hit by a bigger wave – this time exceeding the hospitals’ capacity. Through mid-January of 2021, clinicians cared for approximately 240 COVID-19 patients, up to 47 at a time, in the field hospital. A third wave in the autumn of 2021 plateaued at a level lower than the previous fall, so the field hospital is not currently needed.
Replicating hospital work flows
“We ensured that everybody who needed to be within the walls of the permanent hospitals was able to stay there,” said Dr. Lee’s colleague, hospitalist Adnan (Eddy) Akbar, MD. “The postacute system we ordinarily rely on was no longer accepting patients. Other hospitals in the area were able to manage within their capacity because Renown’s field hospital could admit excess patients. We tried to replicate in the field hospital, as much as possible, the work flows and systems of our main hospital.”
When the field hospital finally opened, Dr. Akbar said, “we had a good feeling. We were ready. If something more catastrophic had come down, we were ready to care for more patients. In the field hospital you have to keep monitoring your work flow – almost on a daily basis. But we felt privileged to be working for a system where you knew you can go and care for everyone who needed care.”
One upside of the field hospital experience for participating clinicians, Dr. Lee added, is the opportunity to practice creatively. “The downside is it’s extremely expensive, and has consequences for the mental health of staff. Like so many of these things, it wore on people over time – such as all the time spent donning and doffing protective equipment. And recently the patients have become a lot less gracious.”
Amy Baughman, MD, a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was co-medical director of the postacute care section of a 1,000-bed field hospital, Boston Hope Medical Center, opened in April 2020 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The other half of the facility was dedicated to undomiciled COVID-19 patients who had no place else to go. Peak census was around 100 patients, housed on four units, each with a clinical team led by a physician.
Dr. Baughman’s field hospital experience has taught her the importance of “staying within your domain of expertise. Physicians are attracted to difficult problems and want to do everything themselves. Next time I won’t be the one installing hand sanitizer dispensers.” A big part of running a field hospital is logistics, she said, and physicians are trained clinicians, not necessarily logistics engineers.
“So it’s important to partner with logistics experts. A huge part of our success in building a facility in 9 days of almost continuous construction was the involvement of the National Guard,” she said. An incident command system was led by an experienced military general incident commander, with two clinical codirectors. The army also sent in full teams of health professionals.
The facility admitted a lot fewer patients than the worst-case projections before it closed in June 2020. “But at the end of the day, we provided a lot of excellent care,” Dr. Baughman said. “This was about preparing for a disaster. It was all hands on deck, and the hands were health professionals. We spent a lot of money for the patients we took care of, but we had no choice, based on what we believed could happen. At that time, so many nursing facilities and homeless shelters were closed to us. It was impossible to predict what utilization would be.”
Subsequent experience has taught that a lot of even seriously ill COVID-19 patients can be managed safely at home, for example, using accelerated home oxygen monitoring with telelinked pulse oximeters. But in the beginning, Dr. Baughman said, “it was a new situation for us. We had seen what happened in Europe and China. It’s a great thing to be overprepared.”
References
1. Horowitz J. Italy’s health care system groans under coronavirus – a warning to the world. New York Times. 2020 Mar 12.
2. Bell SA et al. T-Minus 10 days: The role of an academic medical institution in field hospital planning. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021 Feb 18:1-6. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X21000224.
3. Singh K et al. Evaluating a widely implemented proprietary deterioration index model among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021 Jul;18(7):1129-37. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202006-698OC.
4. Bell SA et al. Alternate care sites during COVID-19 pandemic: Policy implications for pandemic surge planning. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021 Jul 23;1-3. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2021.241.
‘It’s a great thing to be overprepared’
‘It’s a great thing to be overprepared’
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic’s terrifying first wave in the spring of 2020, dozens of hospitals in high-incidence areas either planned or opened temporary, emergency field hospitals to cover anticipated demand for beds beyond the capacity of local permanent hospitals.
Chastened by images of overwhelmed health care systems in Northern Italy and other hard-hit areas,1 the planners used available modeling tools and estimates for projecting maximum potential need in worst-case scenarios. Some of these temporary hospitals never opened. Others opened in convention centers, parking garages, or parking lot tents, and ended up being used to a lesser degree than the worst-case scenarios.
But those who participated in the planning – including, in many cases, hospitalists – believe they created alternate care site manuals that could be quickly revived in the event of future COVID surges or other, similar crises. Better to plan for too much, they say, than not plan for enough.
Field hospitals or alternate care sites are defined in a recent journal article in Prehospital Disaster Medicine as “locations that can be converted to provide either inpatient and/or outpatient health services when existing facilities are compromised by a hazard impact or the volume of patients exceeds available capacity and/or capabilities.”2
The lead author of that report, Sue Anne Bell, PhD, FNP-BC, a disaster expert and assistant professor of nursing at the University of Michigan (UM), was one of five members of the leadership team for planning UM’s field hospital. They used an organizational unit structure based on the U.S. military’s staffing structure, with their work organized around six units of planning: personnel and labor, security, clinical operations, logistics and supply, planning and training, and communications. This team planned a 519-bed step-down care facility, the Michigan Medicine Field Hospital, for a 73,000-foot indoor track and performance facility at the university, three miles from UM’s main hospital. The aim was to provide safe care in a resource-limited environment.
“We were prepared, but the need never materialized as the peak of COVID cases started to subside,” Dr. Bell said. The team was ready to open within days using a “T-Minus” framework of days remaining on an official countdown clock. But when the need and deadlines kept getting pushed back, that gave them more time to develop clearer procedures.
Two Michigan Medicine hospitalists, Christopher Smith, MD, and David Paje, MD, MPH, both professors at UM’s medical school, were intimately involved in the process. “I was the medical director for the respiratory care unit that was opened for COVID patients, so I was pulled in to assist in the field hospital planning,” said Dr. Smith.
Dr. Paje was director of the short-stay unit and had been a medical officer in the U.S. Army, with training in how to set up military field hospitals. He credits that background as helpful for UM’s COVID field hospital planning, along with his experience in hospital medicine operations.
“We expected that these patients would need the expertise of hospitalists, who had quickly become familiar with the peculiarities of the new disease. That played a role in the decisions we made. Hospitalists were at the front lines of COVID care and had unique clinical insights about managing those with severe disease,” Dr. Paje added.
“When we started, the projections were dire. You don’t want to believe something like that is going to happen. When COVID started to cool off, it was more of a relief to us than anything else,” Dr. Smith said. “Still, it was a very worthwhile exercise. At the end of the day, we put together a comprehensive guide, which is ready for the next crisis.”
Baltimore builds a convention center hospital
A COVID-19 field hospital was planned and executed at an exhibit hall in the Baltimore Convention Center, starting in March 2020 under the leadership of Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist Eric Howell, MD, MHM, who eventually handed over responsibilities as chief medical officer when he assumed the position of CEO for the Society of Hospital Medicine in July of that year.
Hopkins collaborated with the University of Maryland health system and state leaders, including the Secretary of Health, to open a 252-bed temporary facility, which at its peak carried a census of 48 patients, with no on-site mortality or cardiac arrests, before it was closed in June 2021 – ready to reopen if necessary. It also served as Baltimore’s major site for polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 testing, vaccinations, and monoclonal antibody infusions, along with medical research.
“My belief at the time we started was that my entire 20-year career as a hospitalist had prepared me for the challenge of opening a COVID field hospital,” Dr. Howell said. “I had learned how to build clinical programs. The difference was that instead of months and years to build a program, we only had a few weeks.”
His first request was to bring on an associate medical director for the field hospital, Melinda E. Kantsiper, MD, a hospitalist and director of clinical operations in the Division of Hospital Medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview. She became the field hospital’s CMO when Dr. Howell moved to SHM. “As hospitalists, we are trained to care for the patient in front of us while at the same time creating systems that can adjust to rapidly changing circumstances,” Dr. Kantsiper said. “We did what was asked and set up a field hospital that cared for a total of 1,500 COVID patients.”
Hospitalists have the tools that are needed for this work, and shouldn’t be reluctant to contribute to field hospital planning, she said. “This was a real eye-opener for me. Eric explained to me that hospitalists really practice acute care medicine, which doesn’t have to be within the four walls of a hospital.”
The Baltimore field hospital has been a fantastic experience, Dr. Kantsiper added. “But it’s not a building designed for health care delivery.” For the right group of providers, the experience of working in a temporary facility such as this can be positive and exhilarating. “But we need to make sure we take care of our staff. It takes a toll. How we keep them safe – physically and emotionally – has to be top of mind,” she said.
The leaders at Hopkins Medicine and their collaborators truly engaged with the field hospital’s mission, Dr. Howell added.
“They gave us a lot of autonomy and helped us break down barriers. They gave us the political capital to say proper PPE was absolutely essential. As hard and devastating as the pandemic has been, one take-away is that we showed that we can be more flexible and elastic in response to actual needs than we used to think.”
Range of challenges
Among the questions that need to be answered by a field hospital’s planners, the first is ‘where to put it?’ The answer is, hopefully, someplace not too far away, large enough, with ready access to supplies and intake. The next question is ‘who is the patient?’ Clinicians must determine who goes to the field hospital versus who stays at the standing hospital. How sick should these patients be? And when do they need to go back to the permanent hospital? Can staff be trained to recognize when patients in the field hospital are starting to decompensate? The EPIC Deterioration Index3 is a proprietary prediction model that was used by more than a hundred hospitals during the pandemic.
The hospitalist team may develop specific inclusion and exclusion criteria – for example, don’t admit patients who are receiving oxygen therapy above a certain threshold or who are hemodynamically unstable. These criteria should reflect the capacity of the field hospital and the needs of the permanent hospital. At Michigan, as at other field hospital sites, the goal was to offer a step-down or postacute setting for patients with COVID-19 who were too sick to return home but didn’t need acute or ICU-level care, thereby freeing up beds at the permanent hospital for patients who were sicker.
Other questions: What is the process for admissions and discharges? How will patients be transported? What kind of staffing is needed, and what levels of care will be provided? What about rehabilitation services, or palliative care? What about patients with substance abuse or psychiatric comorbidities?
“Are we going to do paper charting? How will that work out for long-term documentation and billing?” Dr. Bell said. A clear reporting structure and communication pathways are essential. Among the other operational processes to address, outlined in Dr. Bell’s article, are orientation and training, PPE donning and doffing procedures, the code or rapid response team, patient and staff food and nutrition, infection control protocols, pharmacy services, access to radiology, rounding procedures, staff support, and the morgue.
One other issue that shouldn’t be overlooked is health equity in the field hospital. “Providing safe and equitable care should be the focus. Thinking who goes to the field hospital should be done within a health equity framework,” Dr. Bell said.4 She also wonders if field hospital planners are sharing their experience with colleagues across the country and developing more collaborative relationships with other hospitals in their communities.
“Field hospitals can be different things,” Dr. Bell said. “The important take-home is it doesn’t have to be in a tent or a parking garage, which can be suboptimal.” In many cases, it may be better to focus on finding unused space within the hospital – whether a lobby, staff lounge, or unoccupied unit – closer to personnel, supplies, pharmacy, and the like. “I think the pandemic showed us how unprepared we were as a health care system, and how much more we need to do in preparation for future crises.”
Limits to the temporary hospital
In New York City, which had the country’s worst COVID-19 outbreak during the first surge in the spring of 2020, a 1,000-bed field hospital was opened at the Jacob Javits Center in March 2020 and closed that June. “I was in the field hospital early, in March and April, when our hospitals were temporarily overrun,” said hospitalist Mona Krouss, MD, FACP, CPPS, NYC Health + Hospitals’ director of patient safety. “My role was to figure out how to get patients on our medical floors into these field hospitals, with responsibility for helping to revise admission criteria,” she said.
“No one knew how horrible it would become. This was so unanticipated, so difficult to operationalize. What they were able to create was amazing, but there were just too many barriers to have it work smoothly,” Dr. Krouss said.
“The military stepped in, and they helped us so much. We wouldn’t have been able to survive without their help.” But there is only so much a field hospital can do to provide acute medical care. Later, military medical teams shifted to roles in temporary units inside the permanent hospitals. “They came to the hospital wanting to be deployed,” she said.
“We could only send patients [to the field hospital] who were fairly stable, and choosing the right ones was difficult.” Dr. Krouss said. In the end, not a lot of COVID-19 patients from NYC Health + Hospitals ended up going to the Javits Center, in part because the paperwork and logistics of getting someone in was a barrier, Dr. Krouss said. A process was established for referring doctors to call a phone number and speak with a New York City Department of Health employee to go through the criteria for admission to the field hospital.
“That could take up to 30 minutes before getting approval. Then you had to go through the same process all over again for sign-out to another physician, and then register the patient with a special bar code. Then you had to arrange ambulance transfer. Doctors didn’t want to go through all of that – everybody was too busy,” she explained. Hospitalists have since worked on streamlining the criteria. “Now we have a good process for the future. We made it more seamless,” she noted.
Susan Lee, DO, MBA, hospitalist and chief medical officer for Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nev., helped to plan an alternate care site in anticipation of up to a thousand COVID patients in her community – far beyond the scope of the existing hospitals. Hospitalists were involved the entire time in planning, design of the unit, design of staffing models, care protocols, and the like, working through an evidence-based medical committee and a COVID-19 provider task force for the Renown Health System.
“Because of a history of fires and earthquakes in this region, we had an emergency planning infrastructure in place. We put the field hospital on the first and second floors of a parking garage, with built-in negative pressure capacity. We also built space for staff break rooms and desk space. It took 10 days to build the hospital, thanks to some very talented people in management and facility design,” Dr. Lee said.
Then, the hospital was locked up and sat empty for 7 months, until the surge in December 2020, when Reno was hit by a bigger wave – this time exceeding the hospitals’ capacity. Through mid-January of 2021, clinicians cared for approximately 240 COVID-19 patients, up to 47 at a time, in the field hospital. A third wave in the autumn of 2021 plateaued at a level lower than the previous fall, so the field hospital is not currently needed.
Replicating hospital work flows
“We ensured that everybody who needed to be within the walls of the permanent hospitals was able to stay there,” said Dr. Lee’s colleague, hospitalist Adnan (Eddy) Akbar, MD. “The postacute system we ordinarily rely on was no longer accepting patients. Other hospitals in the area were able to manage within their capacity because Renown’s field hospital could admit excess patients. We tried to replicate in the field hospital, as much as possible, the work flows and systems of our main hospital.”
When the field hospital finally opened, Dr. Akbar said, “we had a good feeling. We were ready. If something more catastrophic had come down, we were ready to care for more patients. In the field hospital you have to keep monitoring your work flow – almost on a daily basis. But we felt privileged to be working for a system where you knew you can go and care for everyone who needed care.”
One upside of the field hospital experience for participating clinicians, Dr. Lee added, is the opportunity to practice creatively. “The downside is it’s extremely expensive, and has consequences for the mental health of staff. Like so many of these things, it wore on people over time – such as all the time spent donning and doffing protective equipment. And recently the patients have become a lot less gracious.”
Amy Baughman, MD, a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was co-medical director of the postacute care section of a 1,000-bed field hospital, Boston Hope Medical Center, opened in April 2020 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The other half of the facility was dedicated to undomiciled COVID-19 patients who had no place else to go. Peak census was around 100 patients, housed on four units, each with a clinical team led by a physician.
Dr. Baughman’s field hospital experience has taught her the importance of “staying within your domain of expertise. Physicians are attracted to difficult problems and want to do everything themselves. Next time I won’t be the one installing hand sanitizer dispensers.” A big part of running a field hospital is logistics, she said, and physicians are trained clinicians, not necessarily logistics engineers.
“So it’s important to partner with logistics experts. A huge part of our success in building a facility in 9 days of almost continuous construction was the involvement of the National Guard,” she said. An incident command system was led by an experienced military general incident commander, with two clinical codirectors. The army also sent in full teams of health professionals.
The facility admitted a lot fewer patients than the worst-case projections before it closed in June 2020. “But at the end of the day, we provided a lot of excellent care,” Dr. Baughman said. “This was about preparing for a disaster. It was all hands on deck, and the hands were health professionals. We spent a lot of money for the patients we took care of, but we had no choice, based on what we believed could happen. At that time, so many nursing facilities and homeless shelters were closed to us. It was impossible to predict what utilization would be.”
Subsequent experience has taught that a lot of even seriously ill COVID-19 patients can be managed safely at home, for example, using accelerated home oxygen monitoring with telelinked pulse oximeters. But in the beginning, Dr. Baughman said, “it was a new situation for us. We had seen what happened in Europe and China. It’s a great thing to be overprepared.”
References
1. Horowitz J. Italy’s health care system groans under coronavirus – a warning to the world. New York Times. 2020 Mar 12.
2. Bell SA et al. T-Minus 10 days: The role of an academic medical institution in field hospital planning. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021 Feb 18:1-6. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X21000224.
3. Singh K et al. Evaluating a widely implemented proprietary deterioration index model among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021 Jul;18(7):1129-37. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202006-698OC.
4. Bell SA et al. Alternate care sites during COVID-19 pandemic: Policy implications for pandemic surge planning. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021 Jul 23;1-3. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2021.241.
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic’s terrifying first wave in the spring of 2020, dozens of hospitals in high-incidence areas either planned or opened temporary, emergency field hospitals to cover anticipated demand for beds beyond the capacity of local permanent hospitals.
Chastened by images of overwhelmed health care systems in Northern Italy and other hard-hit areas,1 the planners used available modeling tools and estimates for projecting maximum potential need in worst-case scenarios. Some of these temporary hospitals never opened. Others opened in convention centers, parking garages, or parking lot tents, and ended up being used to a lesser degree than the worst-case scenarios.
But those who participated in the planning – including, in many cases, hospitalists – believe they created alternate care site manuals that could be quickly revived in the event of future COVID surges or other, similar crises. Better to plan for too much, they say, than not plan for enough.
Field hospitals or alternate care sites are defined in a recent journal article in Prehospital Disaster Medicine as “locations that can be converted to provide either inpatient and/or outpatient health services when existing facilities are compromised by a hazard impact or the volume of patients exceeds available capacity and/or capabilities.”2
The lead author of that report, Sue Anne Bell, PhD, FNP-BC, a disaster expert and assistant professor of nursing at the University of Michigan (UM), was one of five members of the leadership team for planning UM’s field hospital. They used an organizational unit structure based on the U.S. military’s staffing structure, with their work organized around six units of planning: personnel and labor, security, clinical operations, logistics and supply, planning and training, and communications. This team planned a 519-bed step-down care facility, the Michigan Medicine Field Hospital, for a 73,000-foot indoor track and performance facility at the university, three miles from UM’s main hospital. The aim was to provide safe care in a resource-limited environment.
“We were prepared, but the need never materialized as the peak of COVID cases started to subside,” Dr. Bell said. The team was ready to open within days using a “T-Minus” framework of days remaining on an official countdown clock. But when the need and deadlines kept getting pushed back, that gave them more time to develop clearer procedures.
Two Michigan Medicine hospitalists, Christopher Smith, MD, and David Paje, MD, MPH, both professors at UM’s medical school, were intimately involved in the process. “I was the medical director for the respiratory care unit that was opened for COVID patients, so I was pulled in to assist in the field hospital planning,” said Dr. Smith.
Dr. Paje was director of the short-stay unit and had been a medical officer in the U.S. Army, with training in how to set up military field hospitals. He credits that background as helpful for UM’s COVID field hospital planning, along with his experience in hospital medicine operations.
“We expected that these patients would need the expertise of hospitalists, who had quickly become familiar with the peculiarities of the new disease. That played a role in the decisions we made. Hospitalists were at the front lines of COVID care and had unique clinical insights about managing those with severe disease,” Dr. Paje added.
“When we started, the projections were dire. You don’t want to believe something like that is going to happen. When COVID started to cool off, it was more of a relief to us than anything else,” Dr. Smith said. “Still, it was a very worthwhile exercise. At the end of the day, we put together a comprehensive guide, which is ready for the next crisis.”
Baltimore builds a convention center hospital
A COVID-19 field hospital was planned and executed at an exhibit hall in the Baltimore Convention Center, starting in March 2020 under the leadership of Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist Eric Howell, MD, MHM, who eventually handed over responsibilities as chief medical officer when he assumed the position of CEO for the Society of Hospital Medicine in July of that year.
Hopkins collaborated with the University of Maryland health system and state leaders, including the Secretary of Health, to open a 252-bed temporary facility, which at its peak carried a census of 48 patients, with no on-site mortality or cardiac arrests, before it was closed in June 2021 – ready to reopen if necessary. It also served as Baltimore’s major site for polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 testing, vaccinations, and monoclonal antibody infusions, along with medical research.
“My belief at the time we started was that my entire 20-year career as a hospitalist had prepared me for the challenge of opening a COVID field hospital,” Dr. Howell said. “I had learned how to build clinical programs. The difference was that instead of months and years to build a program, we only had a few weeks.”
His first request was to bring on an associate medical director for the field hospital, Melinda E. Kantsiper, MD, a hospitalist and director of clinical operations in the Division of Hospital Medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview. She became the field hospital’s CMO when Dr. Howell moved to SHM. “As hospitalists, we are trained to care for the patient in front of us while at the same time creating systems that can adjust to rapidly changing circumstances,” Dr. Kantsiper said. “We did what was asked and set up a field hospital that cared for a total of 1,500 COVID patients.”
Hospitalists have the tools that are needed for this work, and shouldn’t be reluctant to contribute to field hospital planning, she said. “This was a real eye-opener for me. Eric explained to me that hospitalists really practice acute care medicine, which doesn’t have to be within the four walls of a hospital.”
The Baltimore field hospital has been a fantastic experience, Dr. Kantsiper added. “But it’s not a building designed for health care delivery.” For the right group of providers, the experience of working in a temporary facility such as this can be positive and exhilarating. “But we need to make sure we take care of our staff. It takes a toll. How we keep them safe – physically and emotionally – has to be top of mind,” she said.
The leaders at Hopkins Medicine and their collaborators truly engaged with the field hospital’s mission, Dr. Howell added.
“They gave us a lot of autonomy and helped us break down barriers. They gave us the political capital to say proper PPE was absolutely essential. As hard and devastating as the pandemic has been, one take-away is that we showed that we can be more flexible and elastic in response to actual needs than we used to think.”
Range of challenges
Among the questions that need to be answered by a field hospital’s planners, the first is ‘where to put it?’ The answer is, hopefully, someplace not too far away, large enough, with ready access to supplies and intake. The next question is ‘who is the patient?’ Clinicians must determine who goes to the field hospital versus who stays at the standing hospital. How sick should these patients be? And when do they need to go back to the permanent hospital? Can staff be trained to recognize when patients in the field hospital are starting to decompensate? The EPIC Deterioration Index3 is a proprietary prediction model that was used by more than a hundred hospitals during the pandemic.
The hospitalist team may develop specific inclusion and exclusion criteria – for example, don’t admit patients who are receiving oxygen therapy above a certain threshold or who are hemodynamically unstable. These criteria should reflect the capacity of the field hospital and the needs of the permanent hospital. At Michigan, as at other field hospital sites, the goal was to offer a step-down or postacute setting for patients with COVID-19 who were too sick to return home but didn’t need acute or ICU-level care, thereby freeing up beds at the permanent hospital for patients who were sicker.
Other questions: What is the process for admissions and discharges? How will patients be transported? What kind of staffing is needed, and what levels of care will be provided? What about rehabilitation services, or palliative care? What about patients with substance abuse or psychiatric comorbidities?
“Are we going to do paper charting? How will that work out for long-term documentation and billing?” Dr. Bell said. A clear reporting structure and communication pathways are essential. Among the other operational processes to address, outlined in Dr. Bell’s article, are orientation and training, PPE donning and doffing procedures, the code or rapid response team, patient and staff food and nutrition, infection control protocols, pharmacy services, access to radiology, rounding procedures, staff support, and the morgue.
One other issue that shouldn’t be overlooked is health equity in the field hospital. “Providing safe and equitable care should be the focus. Thinking who goes to the field hospital should be done within a health equity framework,” Dr. Bell said.4 She also wonders if field hospital planners are sharing their experience with colleagues across the country and developing more collaborative relationships with other hospitals in their communities.
“Field hospitals can be different things,” Dr. Bell said. “The important take-home is it doesn’t have to be in a tent or a parking garage, which can be suboptimal.” In many cases, it may be better to focus on finding unused space within the hospital – whether a lobby, staff lounge, or unoccupied unit – closer to personnel, supplies, pharmacy, and the like. “I think the pandemic showed us how unprepared we were as a health care system, and how much more we need to do in preparation for future crises.”
Limits to the temporary hospital
In New York City, which had the country’s worst COVID-19 outbreak during the first surge in the spring of 2020, a 1,000-bed field hospital was opened at the Jacob Javits Center in March 2020 and closed that June. “I was in the field hospital early, in March and April, when our hospitals were temporarily overrun,” said hospitalist Mona Krouss, MD, FACP, CPPS, NYC Health + Hospitals’ director of patient safety. “My role was to figure out how to get patients on our medical floors into these field hospitals, with responsibility for helping to revise admission criteria,” she said.
“No one knew how horrible it would become. This was so unanticipated, so difficult to operationalize. What they were able to create was amazing, but there were just too many barriers to have it work smoothly,” Dr. Krouss said.
“The military stepped in, and they helped us so much. We wouldn’t have been able to survive without their help.” But there is only so much a field hospital can do to provide acute medical care. Later, military medical teams shifted to roles in temporary units inside the permanent hospitals. “They came to the hospital wanting to be deployed,” she said.
“We could only send patients [to the field hospital] who were fairly stable, and choosing the right ones was difficult.” Dr. Krouss said. In the end, not a lot of COVID-19 patients from NYC Health + Hospitals ended up going to the Javits Center, in part because the paperwork and logistics of getting someone in was a barrier, Dr. Krouss said. A process was established for referring doctors to call a phone number and speak with a New York City Department of Health employee to go through the criteria for admission to the field hospital.
“That could take up to 30 minutes before getting approval. Then you had to go through the same process all over again for sign-out to another physician, and then register the patient with a special bar code. Then you had to arrange ambulance transfer. Doctors didn’t want to go through all of that – everybody was too busy,” she explained. Hospitalists have since worked on streamlining the criteria. “Now we have a good process for the future. We made it more seamless,” she noted.
Susan Lee, DO, MBA, hospitalist and chief medical officer for Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nev., helped to plan an alternate care site in anticipation of up to a thousand COVID patients in her community – far beyond the scope of the existing hospitals. Hospitalists were involved the entire time in planning, design of the unit, design of staffing models, care protocols, and the like, working through an evidence-based medical committee and a COVID-19 provider task force for the Renown Health System.
“Because of a history of fires and earthquakes in this region, we had an emergency planning infrastructure in place. We put the field hospital on the first and second floors of a parking garage, with built-in negative pressure capacity. We also built space for staff break rooms and desk space. It took 10 days to build the hospital, thanks to some very talented people in management and facility design,” Dr. Lee said.
Then, the hospital was locked up and sat empty for 7 months, until the surge in December 2020, when Reno was hit by a bigger wave – this time exceeding the hospitals’ capacity. Through mid-January of 2021, clinicians cared for approximately 240 COVID-19 patients, up to 47 at a time, in the field hospital. A third wave in the autumn of 2021 plateaued at a level lower than the previous fall, so the field hospital is not currently needed.
Replicating hospital work flows
“We ensured that everybody who needed to be within the walls of the permanent hospitals was able to stay there,” said Dr. Lee’s colleague, hospitalist Adnan (Eddy) Akbar, MD. “The postacute system we ordinarily rely on was no longer accepting patients. Other hospitals in the area were able to manage within their capacity because Renown’s field hospital could admit excess patients. We tried to replicate in the field hospital, as much as possible, the work flows and systems of our main hospital.”
When the field hospital finally opened, Dr. Akbar said, “we had a good feeling. We were ready. If something more catastrophic had come down, we were ready to care for more patients. In the field hospital you have to keep monitoring your work flow – almost on a daily basis. But we felt privileged to be working for a system where you knew you can go and care for everyone who needed care.”
One upside of the field hospital experience for participating clinicians, Dr. Lee added, is the opportunity to practice creatively. “The downside is it’s extremely expensive, and has consequences for the mental health of staff. Like so many of these things, it wore on people over time – such as all the time spent donning and doffing protective equipment. And recently the patients have become a lot less gracious.”
Amy Baughman, MD, a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was co-medical director of the postacute care section of a 1,000-bed field hospital, Boston Hope Medical Center, opened in April 2020 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The other half of the facility was dedicated to undomiciled COVID-19 patients who had no place else to go. Peak census was around 100 patients, housed on four units, each with a clinical team led by a physician.
Dr. Baughman’s field hospital experience has taught her the importance of “staying within your domain of expertise. Physicians are attracted to difficult problems and want to do everything themselves. Next time I won’t be the one installing hand sanitizer dispensers.” A big part of running a field hospital is logistics, she said, and physicians are trained clinicians, not necessarily logistics engineers.
“So it’s important to partner with logistics experts. A huge part of our success in building a facility in 9 days of almost continuous construction was the involvement of the National Guard,” she said. An incident command system was led by an experienced military general incident commander, with two clinical codirectors. The army also sent in full teams of health professionals.
The facility admitted a lot fewer patients than the worst-case projections before it closed in June 2020. “But at the end of the day, we provided a lot of excellent care,” Dr. Baughman said. “This was about preparing for a disaster. It was all hands on deck, and the hands were health professionals. We spent a lot of money for the patients we took care of, but we had no choice, based on what we believed could happen. At that time, so many nursing facilities and homeless shelters were closed to us. It was impossible to predict what utilization would be.”
Subsequent experience has taught that a lot of even seriously ill COVID-19 patients can be managed safely at home, for example, using accelerated home oxygen monitoring with telelinked pulse oximeters. But in the beginning, Dr. Baughman said, “it was a new situation for us. We had seen what happened in Europe and China. It’s a great thing to be overprepared.”
References
1. Horowitz J. Italy’s health care system groans under coronavirus – a warning to the world. New York Times. 2020 Mar 12.
2. Bell SA et al. T-Minus 10 days: The role of an academic medical institution in field hospital planning. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021 Feb 18:1-6. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X21000224.
3. Singh K et al. Evaluating a widely implemented proprietary deterioration index model among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021 Jul;18(7):1129-37. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202006-698OC.
4. Bell SA et al. Alternate care sites during COVID-19 pandemic: Policy implications for pandemic surge planning. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021 Jul 23;1-3. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2021.241.
More tools for the COVID toolbox
I was recently asked to see a 16-year-old, unvaccinated (against COVID-19) adolescent with hypothyroidism and obesity (body mass index 37 kg/m2) seen in the pediatric emergency department with tachycardia, O2 saturation 96%, urinary tract infection, poor appetite, and nausea. Her chest x-ray had low lung volumes but no infiltrates. She was noted to be dehydrated. Testing for COVID-19 was PCR positive.1
She was observed overnight, tolerated oral rehydration, and was being readied for discharge. Pediatric Infectious Diseases was called about prescribing remdesivir.
Remdesivir was not indicated as its current use is limited to inpatients with oxygen desaturations less than 94%. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines do recommend the use of monoclonal antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for prevention of COVID disease progression in high-risk individuals. Specifically, the IDSA guidelines say, “Among ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab rather than no neutralizing antibody treatment.”
The Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) allowed use of specific monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab/imdevimab in combination, bamlanivimab/etesevimab in combination, and sotrovimab alone) for individuals 12 years and above with a minimum weight of 40 kg with high-risk conditions, describing the evidence as moderate certainty.2
Several questions have arisen regarding their use. Which children qualify under the EUA? Are the available monoclonal antibodies effective for SARS-CoV-2 variants? What adverse events were observed? Are there implementation hurdles?
Unlike the EUA for prophylactic use, which targeted unvaccinated individuals and those unlikely to have a good antibody response to vaccine, use of monoclonal antibody for prevention of progression does not have such restrictions. Effectiveness may vary by local variant susceptibility and should be considered in the choice of the most appropriate monoclonal antibody therapy. Reductions in hospitalization and progression to critical disease status were reported from phase 3 studies; reductions were also observed in mortality in some, but not all, studies. Enhanced viral clearance on day 7 was observed with few subjects having persistent high viral load.
Which children qualify under the EUA? Adolescents 12 years and older and over 40 kg are eligible if a high risk condition is present. High-risk conditions include body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, immunosuppressive disease, or receipt of immunosuppressive therapies, or baseline (pre-COVID infection) medical-related technological dependence such as tracheostomy or positive pressure ventilation. Additional high-risk conditions are neurodevelopmental disorders, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, asthma, or reactive airway or other chronic respiratory disease that requires daily medication for control, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or pregnancy.3
Are the available monoclonal antibodies effective for SARS-CoV-2 variants? Of course, this is a critical question and relies on knowledge of the dominant variant in a specific geographic location. The CDC data on which variants are susceptible to which monoclonal therapies were updated as of Oct. 21 online (see Table 1). Local departments of public health often will have current data on the dominant variant in the community. Currently, the dominant variant in the United States is Delta and it is anticipated to be susceptible to the three monoclonal treatments authorized under the EUA based on in vitro neutralizing assays.
What adverse events were observed? Monoclonal antibody infusions are in general safe but anaphylaxis has been reported. Other infusion-related adverse events include urticaria, pruritis, flushing, pyrexia, shortness of breath, chest tightness, nausea, vomiting, and rash. Nearly all events were grade 1, mild, or grade 2, moderate. For nonsevere infusion-related reactions, consider slowing the infusion; if necessary, the infusion should be stopped.
Implementation challenges
The first challenge is finding a location to infuse the monoclonal antibodies. Although they can be given subcutaneously, the dose is large and little, if any, time is saved as the recommendation is for observation post administration for 1 hour. The challenge we and other centers may face is that the patients are COVID PCR+ and therefore our usual infusion program, which often is occupied by individuals already compromised and at high risk for severe COVID, is an undesirable location. We are planning to use the emergency department to accommodate such patients currently, but even that solution creates challenges for a busy, urban medical center.
Summary
Anti–SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies are an important part of the therapeutic approach to minimizing disease severity. Clinicians should review high-risk conditions in adolescents who are PCR+ for SARS-CoV-2 and have mild to moderate symptoms. Medical care systems should implement programs to make monoclonal infusions available for such high-risk adolescents.4 Obesity and asthma reactive airways or requiring daily medication for control are the two most common conditions that place adolescents with COVID-19 at risk for progression to hospitalization and severe disease in addition to the more traditional immune-compromising conditions and medical fragility.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Federal Response to COVID-19: Monoclonal Antibody Clinical Implementation Guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2021 Sep 2.
2. Bhimraj A et al. IDSA Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19. Last updated 2021 Nov 9.
3. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies. National Institutes of Health’s COVID 19 Treatment Guidelines. Last updated 2021 Oct 19.
4. Spreading the Word on the Benefits of Monoclonal Antibodies for COVID-19, by Hannah R. Buchdahl. CDC Foundation, 2021 Jul 2.
I was recently asked to see a 16-year-old, unvaccinated (against COVID-19) adolescent with hypothyroidism and obesity (body mass index 37 kg/m2) seen in the pediatric emergency department with tachycardia, O2 saturation 96%, urinary tract infection, poor appetite, and nausea. Her chest x-ray had low lung volumes but no infiltrates. She was noted to be dehydrated. Testing for COVID-19 was PCR positive.1
She was observed overnight, tolerated oral rehydration, and was being readied for discharge. Pediatric Infectious Diseases was called about prescribing remdesivir.
Remdesivir was not indicated as its current use is limited to inpatients with oxygen desaturations less than 94%. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines do recommend the use of monoclonal antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for prevention of COVID disease progression in high-risk individuals. Specifically, the IDSA guidelines say, “Among ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab rather than no neutralizing antibody treatment.”
The Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) allowed use of specific monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab/imdevimab in combination, bamlanivimab/etesevimab in combination, and sotrovimab alone) for individuals 12 years and above with a minimum weight of 40 kg with high-risk conditions, describing the evidence as moderate certainty.2
Several questions have arisen regarding their use. Which children qualify under the EUA? Are the available monoclonal antibodies effective for SARS-CoV-2 variants? What adverse events were observed? Are there implementation hurdles?
Unlike the EUA for prophylactic use, which targeted unvaccinated individuals and those unlikely to have a good antibody response to vaccine, use of monoclonal antibody for prevention of progression does not have such restrictions. Effectiveness may vary by local variant susceptibility and should be considered in the choice of the most appropriate monoclonal antibody therapy. Reductions in hospitalization and progression to critical disease status were reported from phase 3 studies; reductions were also observed in mortality in some, but not all, studies. Enhanced viral clearance on day 7 was observed with few subjects having persistent high viral load.
Which children qualify under the EUA? Adolescents 12 years and older and over 40 kg are eligible if a high risk condition is present. High-risk conditions include body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, immunosuppressive disease, or receipt of immunosuppressive therapies, or baseline (pre-COVID infection) medical-related technological dependence such as tracheostomy or positive pressure ventilation. Additional high-risk conditions are neurodevelopmental disorders, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, asthma, or reactive airway or other chronic respiratory disease that requires daily medication for control, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or pregnancy.3
Are the available monoclonal antibodies effective for SARS-CoV-2 variants? Of course, this is a critical question and relies on knowledge of the dominant variant in a specific geographic location. The CDC data on which variants are susceptible to which monoclonal therapies were updated as of Oct. 21 online (see Table 1). Local departments of public health often will have current data on the dominant variant in the community. Currently, the dominant variant in the United States is Delta and it is anticipated to be susceptible to the three monoclonal treatments authorized under the EUA based on in vitro neutralizing assays.
What adverse events were observed? Monoclonal antibody infusions are in general safe but anaphylaxis has been reported. Other infusion-related adverse events include urticaria, pruritis, flushing, pyrexia, shortness of breath, chest tightness, nausea, vomiting, and rash. Nearly all events were grade 1, mild, or grade 2, moderate. For nonsevere infusion-related reactions, consider slowing the infusion; if necessary, the infusion should be stopped.
Implementation challenges
The first challenge is finding a location to infuse the monoclonal antibodies. Although they can be given subcutaneously, the dose is large and little, if any, time is saved as the recommendation is for observation post administration for 1 hour. The challenge we and other centers may face is that the patients are COVID PCR+ and therefore our usual infusion program, which often is occupied by individuals already compromised and at high risk for severe COVID, is an undesirable location. We are planning to use the emergency department to accommodate such patients currently, but even that solution creates challenges for a busy, urban medical center.
Summary
Anti–SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies are an important part of the therapeutic approach to minimizing disease severity. Clinicians should review high-risk conditions in adolescents who are PCR+ for SARS-CoV-2 and have mild to moderate symptoms. Medical care systems should implement programs to make monoclonal infusions available for such high-risk adolescents.4 Obesity and asthma reactive airways or requiring daily medication for control are the two most common conditions that place adolescents with COVID-19 at risk for progression to hospitalization and severe disease in addition to the more traditional immune-compromising conditions and medical fragility.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Federal Response to COVID-19: Monoclonal Antibody Clinical Implementation Guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2021 Sep 2.
2. Bhimraj A et al. IDSA Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19. Last updated 2021 Nov 9.
3. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies. National Institutes of Health’s COVID 19 Treatment Guidelines. Last updated 2021 Oct 19.
4. Spreading the Word on the Benefits of Monoclonal Antibodies for COVID-19, by Hannah R. Buchdahl. CDC Foundation, 2021 Jul 2.
I was recently asked to see a 16-year-old, unvaccinated (against COVID-19) adolescent with hypothyroidism and obesity (body mass index 37 kg/m2) seen in the pediatric emergency department with tachycardia, O2 saturation 96%, urinary tract infection, poor appetite, and nausea. Her chest x-ray had low lung volumes but no infiltrates. She was noted to be dehydrated. Testing for COVID-19 was PCR positive.1
She was observed overnight, tolerated oral rehydration, and was being readied for discharge. Pediatric Infectious Diseases was called about prescribing remdesivir.
Remdesivir was not indicated as its current use is limited to inpatients with oxygen desaturations less than 94%. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines do recommend the use of monoclonal antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for prevention of COVID disease progression in high-risk individuals. Specifically, the IDSA guidelines say, “Among ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab rather than no neutralizing antibody treatment.”
The Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) allowed use of specific monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab/imdevimab in combination, bamlanivimab/etesevimab in combination, and sotrovimab alone) for individuals 12 years and above with a minimum weight of 40 kg with high-risk conditions, describing the evidence as moderate certainty.2
Several questions have arisen regarding their use. Which children qualify under the EUA? Are the available monoclonal antibodies effective for SARS-CoV-2 variants? What adverse events were observed? Are there implementation hurdles?
Unlike the EUA for prophylactic use, which targeted unvaccinated individuals and those unlikely to have a good antibody response to vaccine, use of monoclonal antibody for prevention of progression does not have such restrictions. Effectiveness may vary by local variant susceptibility and should be considered in the choice of the most appropriate monoclonal antibody therapy. Reductions in hospitalization and progression to critical disease status were reported from phase 3 studies; reductions were also observed in mortality in some, but not all, studies. Enhanced viral clearance on day 7 was observed with few subjects having persistent high viral load.
Which children qualify under the EUA? Adolescents 12 years and older and over 40 kg are eligible if a high risk condition is present. High-risk conditions include body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, immunosuppressive disease, or receipt of immunosuppressive therapies, or baseline (pre-COVID infection) medical-related technological dependence such as tracheostomy or positive pressure ventilation. Additional high-risk conditions are neurodevelopmental disorders, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, asthma, or reactive airway or other chronic respiratory disease that requires daily medication for control, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or pregnancy.3
Are the available monoclonal antibodies effective for SARS-CoV-2 variants? Of course, this is a critical question and relies on knowledge of the dominant variant in a specific geographic location. The CDC data on which variants are susceptible to which monoclonal therapies were updated as of Oct. 21 online (see Table 1). Local departments of public health often will have current data on the dominant variant in the community. Currently, the dominant variant in the United States is Delta and it is anticipated to be susceptible to the three monoclonal treatments authorized under the EUA based on in vitro neutralizing assays.
What adverse events were observed? Monoclonal antibody infusions are in general safe but anaphylaxis has been reported. Other infusion-related adverse events include urticaria, pruritis, flushing, pyrexia, shortness of breath, chest tightness, nausea, vomiting, and rash. Nearly all events were grade 1, mild, or grade 2, moderate. For nonsevere infusion-related reactions, consider slowing the infusion; if necessary, the infusion should be stopped.
Implementation challenges
The first challenge is finding a location to infuse the monoclonal antibodies. Although they can be given subcutaneously, the dose is large and little, if any, time is saved as the recommendation is for observation post administration for 1 hour. The challenge we and other centers may face is that the patients are COVID PCR+ and therefore our usual infusion program, which often is occupied by individuals already compromised and at high risk for severe COVID, is an undesirable location. We are planning to use the emergency department to accommodate such patients currently, but even that solution creates challenges for a busy, urban medical center.
Summary
Anti–SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies are an important part of the therapeutic approach to minimizing disease severity. Clinicians should review high-risk conditions in adolescents who are PCR+ for SARS-CoV-2 and have mild to moderate symptoms. Medical care systems should implement programs to make monoclonal infusions available for such high-risk adolescents.4 Obesity and asthma reactive airways or requiring daily medication for control are the two most common conditions that place adolescents with COVID-19 at risk for progression to hospitalization and severe disease in addition to the more traditional immune-compromising conditions and medical fragility.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Federal Response to COVID-19: Monoclonal Antibody Clinical Implementation Guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2021 Sep 2.
2. Bhimraj A et al. IDSA Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19. Last updated 2021 Nov 9.
3. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies. National Institutes of Health’s COVID 19 Treatment Guidelines. Last updated 2021 Oct 19.
4. Spreading the Word on the Benefits of Monoclonal Antibodies for COVID-19, by Hannah R. Buchdahl. CDC Foundation, 2021 Jul 2.
U.S. overdose deaths hit an all-time high
a 28.5% increase from the previous year.
Deaths in some states rose even more precipitously. Vermont saw an almost 70% increase, and drug overdose deaths in West Virginia increased by 62%. Many states, including Alabama, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Washington, had a 45%-50% rise in overdose deaths.
The data released by the CDC was provisional, as there is generally a lag between a reported overdose and confirmation of the death to the National Vital Statistics System. The agency uses statistical models that render the counts almost 100% accurate, the CDC says.
The vast majority (73,757) of overdose deaths involved opioids – with most of those (62,338) involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Federal officials said that one American died every 5 minutes from an overdose, or 265 a day.
“We have to acknowledge what this is – it is a crisis,” Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters on a call.
“As much as the numbers speak so vividly, they don’t tell the whole story. We see it in the faces of grieving families and all those overworked caregivers. You hear it every time you get that panicked 911 phone call, you read it in obituaries of sons and daughters who left us way too soon,” Mr. Becerra said.
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that “this is unacceptable, and it requires an unprecedented response.”
Dr. Gupta, who noted that he has a waiver to treat substance use disorder patients with buprenorphine, said he’s seen “first-hand the heartbreak of the overdose epidemic,” adding that, with 23 years in practice, “I’ve learned that an overdose is a cry for help and for far too many people that cry goes unanswered.”
Both Mr. Becerra and Dr. Gupta called on Congress to pass President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget request, noting that it calls for $41 billion – a $669 million increase from fiscal year 2021 – to go to agencies working on drug interdiction and substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery support.
Dr. Gupta also announced that the administration was releasing a model law that could be used by state legislatures to help standardize policies on making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. Currently, such policies are a patchwork across the nation.
In addition, the federal government is newly supporting harm reduction, Mr. Becerra said. This means federal money can be used by clinics and outreach programs to buy fentanyl test strips, which they can then distribute to drug users.
“It’s important for Americans to have the ability to make sure that they can test for fentanyl in the substance,” Dr. Gupta said.
Fake pills, fentanyl a huge issue
Federal officials said that both fentanyl and methamphetamine are contributing to rising numbers of fatalities.
“Drug cartels in Mexico are mass-producing fentanyl and methamphetamine largely sourced from chemicals in China and they are distributing these substances throughout the United States,” Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on the call.
Ms. Milgram said the agency had seized 12,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2021, enough to provide every American with a lethal dose. Fentanyl is also mixed in with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana – often in counterfeit pills, Ms. Milgram said.
The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have seized more than 14 million such pills in 2021. “These types of pills are easily accessible today on social media and e-commerce platforms, Ms. Milgram said.
“Drug dealers are now in our homes,” she said. “Wherever there is a smart phone or a computer, a dealer is one click away,” Ms. Milgram said.
National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora D. Volkow, MD, said that dealers will continue to push both fentanyl and methamphetamine because they are among the most addictive substances. They also are more profitable because they don’t require cultivation and harvesting, she said on the call.
Dr. Volkow also noted that naloxone is not as effective in reversing fentanyl overdoses because fentanyl is more potent than heroin and other opioids, and “it gets into the brain extremely rapidly.”
Ongoing research is aimed at developing a faster delivery mechanism and a longer-lasting formulation to counter overdoses, Dr. Volkow said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a 28.5% increase from the previous year.
Deaths in some states rose even more precipitously. Vermont saw an almost 70% increase, and drug overdose deaths in West Virginia increased by 62%. Many states, including Alabama, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Washington, had a 45%-50% rise in overdose deaths.
The data released by the CDC was provisional, as there is generally a lag between a reported overdose and confirmation of the death to the National Vital Statistics System. The agency uses statistical models that render the counts almost 100% accurate, the CDC says.
The vast majority (73,757) of overdose deaths involved opioids – with most of those (62,338) involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Federal officials said that one American died every 5 minutes from an overdose, or 265 a day.
“We have to acknowledge what this is – it is a crisis,” Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters on a call.
“As much as the numbers speak so vividly, they don’t tell the whole story. We see it in the faces of grieving families and all those overworked caregivers. You hear it every time you get that panicked 911 phone call, you read it in obituaries of sons and daughters who left us way too soon,” Mr. Becerra said.
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that “this is unacceptable, and it requires an unprecedented response.”
Dr. Gupta, who noted that he has a waiver to treat substance use disorder patients with buprenorphine, said he’s seen “first-hand the heartbreak of the overdose epidemic,” adding that, with 23 years in practice, “I’ve learned that an overdose is a cry for help and for far too many people that cry goes unanswered.”
Both Mr. Becerra and Dr. Gupta called on Congress to pass President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget request, noting that it calls for $41 billion – a $669 million increase from fiscal year 2021 – to go to agencies working on drug interdiction and substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery support.
Dr. Gupta also announced that the administration was releasing a model law that could be used by state legislatures to help standardize policies on making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. Currently, such policies are a patchwork across the nation.
In addition, the federal government is newly supporting harm reduction, Mr. Becerra said. This means federal money can be used by clinics and outreach programs to buy fentanyl test strips, which they can then distribute to drug users.
“It’s important for Americans to have the ability to make sure that they can test for fentanyl in the substance,” Dr. Gupta said.
Fake pills, fentanyl a huge issue
Federal officials said that both fentanyl and methamphetamine are contributing to rising numbers of fatalities.
“Drug cartels in Mexico are mass-producing fentanyl and methamphetamine largely sourced from chemicals in China and they are distributing these substances throughout the United States,” Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on the call.
Ms. Milgram said the agency had seized 12,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2021, enough to provide every American with a lethal dose. Fentanyl is also mixed in with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana – often in counterfeit pills, Ms. Milgram said.
The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have seized more than 14 million such pills in 2021. “These types of pills are easily accessible today on social media and e-commerce platforms, Ms. Milgram said.
“Drug dealers are now in our homes,” she said. “Wherever there is a smart phone or a computer, a dealer is one click away,” Ms. Milgram said.
National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora D. Volkow, MD, said that dealers will continue to push both fentanyl and methamphetamine because they are among the most addictive substances. They also are more profitable because they don’t require cultivation and harvesting, she said on the call.
Dr. Volkow also noted that naloxone is not as effective in reversing fentanyl overdoses because fentanyl is more potent than heroin and other opioids, and “it gets into the brain extremely rapidly.”
Ongoing research is aimed at developing a faster delivery mechanism and a longer-lasting formulation to counter overdoses, Dr. Volkow said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a 28.5% increase from the previous year.
Deaths in some states rose even more precipitously. Vermont saw an almost 70% increase, and drug overdose deaths in West Virginia increased by 62%. Many states, including Alabama, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Washington, had a 45%-50% rise in overdose deaths.
The data released by the CDC was provisional, as there is generally a lag between a reported overdose and confirmation of the death to the National Vital Statistics System. The agency uses statistical models that render the counts almost 100% accurate, the CDC says.
The vast majority (73,757) of overdose deaths involved opioids – with most of those (62,338) involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Federal officials said that one American died every 5 minutes from an overdose, or 265 a day.
“We have to acknowledge what this is – it is a crisis,” Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters on a call.
“As much as the numbers speak so vividly, they don’t tell the whole story. We see it in the faces of grieving families and all those overworked caregivers. You hear it every time you get that panicked 911 phone call, you read it in obituaries of sons and daughters who left us way too soon,” Mr. Becerra said.
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that “this is unacceptable, and it requires an unprecedented response.”
Dr. Gupta, who noted that he has a waiver to treat substance use disorder patients with buprenorphine, said he’s seen “first-hand the heartbreak of the overdose epidemic,” adding that, with 23 years in practice, “I’ve learned that an overdose is a cry for help and for far too many people that cry goes unanswered.”
Both Mr. Becerra and Dr. Gupta called on Congress to pass President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget request, noting that it calls for $41 billion – a $669 million increase from fiscal year 2021 – to go to agencies working on drug interdiction and substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery support.
Dr. Gupta also announced that the administration was releasing a model law that could be used by state legislatures to help standardize policies on making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. Currently, such policies are a patchwork across the nation.
In addition, the federal government is newly supporting harm reduction, Mr. Becerra said. This means federal money can be used by clinics and outreach programs to buy fentanyl test strips, which they can then distribute to drug users.
“It’s important for Americans to have the ability to make sure that they can test for fentanyl in the substance,” Dr. Gupta said.
Fake pills, fentanyl a huge issue
Federal officials said that both fentanyl and methamphetamine are contributing to rising numbers of fatalities.
“Drug cartels in Mexico are mass-producing fentanyl and methamphetamine largely sourced from chemicals in China and they are distributing these substances throughout the United States,” Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on the call.
Ms. Milgram said the agency had seized 12,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2021, enough to provide every American with a lethal dose. Fentanyl is also mixed in with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana – often in counterfeit pills, Ms. Milgram said.
The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have seized more than 14 million such pills in 2021. “These types of pills are easily accessible today on social media and e-commerce platforms, Ms. Milgram said.
“Drug dealers are now in our homes,” she said. “Wherever there is a smart phone or a computer, a dealer is one click away,” Ms. Milgram said.
National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora D. Volkow, MD, said that dealers will continue to push both fentanyl and methamphetamine because they are among the most addictive substances. They also are more profitable because they don’t require cultivation and harvesting, she said on the call.
Dr. Volkow also noted that naloxone is not as effective in reversing fentanyl overdoses because fentanyl is more potent than heroin and other opioids, and “it gets into the brain extremely rapidly.”
Ongoing research is aimed at developing a faster delivery mechanism and a longer-lasting formulation to counter overdoses, Dr. Volkow said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Timing of endoscopy for acute upper GI bleeding
Background: Prior studies have failed to show a benefit to earlier endoscopic intervention in acute GI bleeding. However, those studies were performed in all-comers without attention to the varying risk within the patient population.
Study design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Single center in Hong Kong.
Synopsis: Patients at high risk for further bleeding or death by clinical score were randomized to endoscopy within 6 hours (“urgent endoscopy”), vs. the following day (“early endoscopy”), of GI consultation. Those who required immediate endoscopic intervention because of hemodynamic instability were excluded. All were prescribed proton-pump inhibitor drip, with the addition of vasoactive drugs and antibiotics if there was a suspected variceal bleed. There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups – 8.9% with urgent endoscopy and 6.6% with early endoscopy (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.72-2.54). There was no difference in length of hospital stay or the number of transfusions. Earlier endoscopy within 6 hours was associated with a higher number of actively bleeding lesions requiring intervention and a nonstatistical increase in recurrent bleeding within 30 days. It is believed that more time on proton-pump inhibitor infusion prior to endoscopy allows for stabilization of bleeds, thus requiring less intervention when endoscopy does occur.
Bottom line: Early endoscopy within 6 hours was not beneficial for those at high risk for rebleeding and death from upper GI bleed.
Citation: Lau JYW et al. Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1299-308. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1912484.
Dr. Lee is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.
Background: Prior studies have failed to show a benefit to earlier endoscopic intervention in acute GI bleeding. However, those studies were performed in all-comers without attention to the varying risk within the patient population.
Study design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Single center in Hong Kong.
Synopsis: Patients at high risk for further bleeding or death by clinical score were randomized to endoscopy within 6 hours (“urgent endoscopy”), vs. the following day (“early endoscopy”), of GI consultation. Those who required immediate endoscopic intervention because of hemodynamic instability were excluded. All were prescribed proton-pump inhibitor drip, with the addition of vasoactive drugs and antibiotics if there was a suspected variceal bleed. There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups – 8.9% with urgent endoscopy and 6.6% with early endoscopy (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.72-2.54). There was no difference in length of hospital stay or the number of transfusions. Earlier endoscopy within 6 hours was associated with a higher number of actively bleeding lesions requiring intervention and a nonstatistical increase in recurrent bleeding within 30 days. It is believed that more time on proton-pump inhibitor infusion prior to endoscopy allows for stabilization of bleeds, thus requiring less intervention when endoscopy does occur.
Bottom line: Early endoscopy within 6 hours was not beneficial for those at high risk for rebleeding and death from upper GI bleed.
Citation: Lau JYW et al. Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1299-308. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1912484.
Dr. Lee is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.
Background: Prior studies have failed to show a benefit to earlier endoscopic intervention in acute GI bleeding. However, those studies were performed in all-comers without attention to the varying risk within the patient population.
Study design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Single center in Hong Kong.
Synopsis: Patients at high risk for further bleeding or death by clinical score were randomized to endoscopy within 6 hours (“urgent endoscopy”), vs. the following day (“early endoscopy”), of GI consultation. Those who required immediate endoscopic intervention because of hemodynamic instability were excluded. All were prescribed proton-pump inhibitor drip, with the addition of vasoactive drugs and antibiotics if there was a suspected variceal bleed. There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups – 8.9% with urgent endoscopy and 6.6% with early endoscopy (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.72-2.54). There was no difference in length of hospital stay or the number of transfusions. Earlier endoscopy within 6 hours was associated with a higher number of actively bleeding lesions requiring intervention and a nonstatistical increase in recurrent bleeding within 30 days. It is believed that more time on proton-pump inhibitor infusion prior to endoscopy allows for stabilization of bleeds, thus requiring less intervention when endoscopy does occur.
Bottom line: Early endoscopy within 6 hours was not beneficial for those at high risk for rebleeding and death from upper GI bleed.
Citation: Lau JYW et al. Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1299-308. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1912484.
Dr. Lee is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, all in Chicago.
Retiform Purpura on the Buttocks in 6 Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients
To the Editor:
There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.1 Magro et al2 reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.
We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.
Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.
Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,2 we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues2), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,3 a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.4
COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.
Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.
- Recalcati S. Cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19: a first perspective. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:e212-e213. doi:10.1111/jdv.16387
- Magro C, Mulvey JJ, Berlin D, et al. Complement associated microvascular injury and thrombosis in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 infection: a report of five cases. Transl Res. 2020;220:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2020.04.007
- Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020;191:145-147. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013
- Tang N, Li D, Wang X, et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:844-847. doi:10.1111/jth.14768
To the Editor:
There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.1 Magro et al2 reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.
We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.
Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.
Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,2 we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues2), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,3 a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.4
COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.
Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.
To the Editor:
There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.1 Magro et al2 reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.
We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.
Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.
Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,2 we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues2), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,3 a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.4
COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.
Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.
- Recalcati S. Cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19: a first perspective. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:e212-e213. doi:10.1111/jdv.16387
- Magro C, Mulvey JJ, Berlin D, et al. Complement associated microvascular injury and thrombosis in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 infection: a report of five cases. Transl Res. 2020;220:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2020.04.007
- Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020;191:145-147. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013
- Tang N, Li D, Wang X, et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:844-847. doi:10.1111/jth.14768
- Recalcati S. Cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19: a first perspective. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:e212-e213. doi:10.1111/jdv.16387
- Magro C, Mulvey JJ, Berlin D, et al. Complement associated microvascular injury and thrombosis in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 infection: a report of five cases. Transl Res. 2020;220:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2020.04.007
- Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020;191:145-147. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013
- Tang N, Li D, Wang X, et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:844-847. doi:10.1111/jth.14768
Practice Points
- Retiform purpura in a severely ill patient with COVID-19 and a markedly elevated D-dimer concentration might be a cutaneous sign of systemic coagulopathy.
- This constellation of findings should prompt consideration of skin biopsy and hematology consultation.
