Cardiology News

After more than 10 hours of intense debate, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel gave its support to a premarket approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart system.

Courtesy Transmedics

The OCS Heart is a portable extracorporeal perfusion and monitoring system designed to keep a donor heart in a normothermic, beating state. The “heart in a box” technology allows donor hearts to be transported across longer distances than is possible with standard cold storage, which can safely preserve donor hearts for about 4 hours.

The Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee voted 12 to 5, with 1 abstention, that the benefits of the OCS Heart System outweigh its risks.

The panel voted in favor of the OCS Heart being effective (10 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstaining) and safe (9 yes, 7 no, 2 abstaining) but not without mixed feelings.

James Blankenship, MD, a cardiologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, voted yes to all three questions but said: “If it had been compared to standard of care, I would have voted no to all three. But if it’s compared to getting an [left ventricular assist device] LVAD or not getting a heart at all, I would say the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Marc R. Katz, MD, chief of cardiothoracic surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also gave universal support, noting that the rate of heart transplantations has been flat for years. “This is a big step forward toward being able to expand that number. Now all that said, it obviously was a less-than-perfect study and I do think there needs to be some constraints put on the utilization.”

The panel reviewed data from the single-arm OCS Heart EXPAND trial and associated EXPAND Continued Access Protocol (CAP), as well the sponsor’s first OCS Heart trial, PROCEED II.

EXPAND met its effectiveness endpoint, with 88% of donor hearts successfully transplanted, an 8% incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) 24 hours after transplantation, and 94.6% survival at 30 days.

Data from 41 patients with 30-day follow-up in the ongoing EXPAND CAP show 91% of donor hearts were utilized, a 2.4% incidence of severe PGD, and 100% 30-day survival.

The sponsor and the FDA clashed over changes made to the trial after the PMA was submitted, the appropriateness of the effectiveness outcome, and claims by the FDA that there was substantial overlap in demographic characteristics between the extended criteria donor hearts in the EXPAND trials and the standard criteria donor hearts in PROCEED II.

TransMedics previously submitted a PMA based on PROCEED II but it noted in submitted documents that it was withdrawn because of “fundamental disagreements with FDA” on the interpretation of a post hoc analysis with United Network for Organ Sharing registry data that identified increased all-cause mortality risk but comparable cardiac-related mortality in patients with OCS hearts.

During the marathon hearing, FDA officials presented several post hoc analyses, including one stratified by donor inclusion criteria, in which 30-day survival estimates were worse in recipients of single-criterion organs than for those receiving donor organs with multiple inclusion criteria (85% vs. 91.4%). In a second analysis, 2-year point estimates of survival also trended lower with donor organs having only one extended criterion.

Reported EXPAND CAP 6- and 12-month survival estimates were 100% and 93%, respectively, which was higher than EXPAND (93% and 84%), but there was substantial censoring (>50%) at 6 months and beyond, FDA officials said.

When EXPAND and CAP data were pooled, modeled survival curves shifted upward but there was a substantial site effect, with a single site contributing 46% of data, which may affect generalizability of the results, they noted.

“I voted yes for safety, no for efficacy, and no for approval and I’d just like to say I found this to be the most difficult vote in my experience on this panel,” John Hirshfeld, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “I was very concerned that the PROCEED data suggests a possible harm, and in the absence of an interpretable comparator for the EXPAND trial, it’s really not possible to decide if there’s efficacy.”

Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City (Mo.), said, “I voted no on safety; I’m not going to give the company a pass. I think their animal data was sorely lacking and a lot of issues over the last 10 years could have been addressed with some key animal studies.

“For efficacy and risk/benefit, I voted yes for both,” he said. “Had this been standard of care and only PROCEED II, I would have voted no, but I do think there are a lot of hearts that go in the bucket and this is a challenging population.”

More than a dozen physicians and patients spoke at the open public hearing about the potential for the device to expand donor heart utilization, including a recipient whose own father died while waiting on the transplant list. Only about 3 out of every 10 donated hearts are used for transplant. To ensure fair access, particularly for patients in rural areas, federal changes in 2020 mandate that organs be allocated to the sickest patients first.

Data showed that the OCS Heart System was associated with shorter waiting list times, compared with U.S. averages but longer preservation times than cold static preservation.

In all, 13% of accepted donor organs were subsequently turned down after OCS heart preservation. Lactate levels were cited as the principal reason for turn-down but, FDA officials said, the validity of using lactate as a marker for transplantability is unclear.

Pathologic analysis of OCS Heart turned-down donor hearts with stable antemortem hemodynamics, normal or near-normal anatomy and normal ventricular function by echocardiography, and autopsy findings of acute diffuse or multifocal myocardial damage “suggest that in an important proportion of cases the OCS Heart system did not provide effective organ preservation or its use caused severe myocardial damage to what might have been an acceptable graft for transplant,” said Andrew Farb, MD, chief medical officer of the FDA’s Office of Cardiovascular Devices.
 

Proposed indication

In the present PMA, the OCS Heart System is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the following characteristics: an expected cross-clamp or ischemic time of at least 4 hours because of donor or recipient characteristics; or an expected total cross-clamp time of at least 2 hours plus one of the following risk factors: donor age 55 or older, history of cardiac arrest and downtime of at least 20 minutes, history of alcoholism, history of diabetes, donor ejection fraction of 40%-50%,history of left ventricular hypertrophy, and donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no significant coronary artery disease

Several members voiced concern about “indication creep” should the device be approved by the FDA, and highlighted the 2-hour cross-clamp time plus wide-ranging risk factors.

“I’m a surgeon and I voted no on all three counts,” said Murray H. Kwon, MD, Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. “As far as risk/benefit, if it was just limited to one group – the 4-hour plus – I would say yes, but if you’re going to tell me that there’s a risk/benefit for the 2-hour with the alcoholic, I don’t know how that was proved in anything.”

Dr. Kwon was also troubled by lack of proper controls and by the one quarter of patients who ended up on mechanical circulatory support in the first 30 days after transplant. “I find that highly aberrant.”

Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, head of cardiovascular medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said the unmet need for patients with refractory, end-stage heart failure is challenging and quite emotional, but also voted no across the board, citing concerns about a lack of comparator in the EXPAND trials and overall out-of-body ischemic time.

“As it relates to risk/benefit, I thought long and hard about voting yes despite all the unknowns because of this emotion, but ultimately I voted no because of the secondary 2-hours plus alcoholism, diabetes, or minor coronary disease, in which the ischemic burden and ongoing lactate production concern me,” he said.

Although the panel decision is nonbinding, there was strong support from the committee members for a randomized, postapproval trial and more complete animal studies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After more than 10 hours of intense debate, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel gave its support to a premarket approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart system.

Courtesy Transmedics

The OCS Heart is a portable extracorporeal perfusion and monitoring system designed to keep a donor heart in a normothermic, beating state. The “heart in a box” technology allows donor hearts to be transported across longer distances than is possible with standard cold storage, which can safely preserve donor hearts for about 4 hours.

The Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee voted 12 to 5, with 1 abstention, that the benefits of the OCS Heart System outweigh its risks.

The panel voted in favor of the OCS Heart being effective (10 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstaining) and safe (9 yes, 7 no, 2 abstaining) but not without mixed feelings.

James Blankenship, MD, a cardiologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, voted yes to all three questions but said: “If it had been compared to standard of care, I would have voted no to all three. But if it’s compared to getting an [left ventricular assist device] LVAD or not getting a heart at all, I would say the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Marc R. Katz, MD, chief of cardiothoracic surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also gave universal support, noting that the rate of heart transplantations has been flat for years. “This is a big step forward toward being able to expand that number. Now all that said, it obviously was a less-than-perfect study and I do think there needs to be some constraints put on the utilization.”

The panel reviewed data from the single-arm OCS Heart EXPAND trial and associated EXPAND Continued Access Protocol (CAP), as well the sponsor’s first OCS Heart trial, PROCEED II.

EXPAND met its effectiveness endpoint, with 88% of donor hearts successfully transplanted, an 8% incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) 24 hours after transplantation, and 94.6% survival at 30 days.

Data from 41 patients with 30-day follow-up in the ongoing EXPAND CAP show 91% of donor hearts were utilized, a 2.4% incidence of severe PGD, and 100% 30-day survival.

The sponsor and the FDA clashed over changes made to the trial after the PMA was submitted, the appropriateness of the effectiveness outcome, and claims by the FDA that there was substantial overlap in demographic characteristics between the extended criteria donor hearts in the EXPAND trials and the standard criteria donor hearts in PROCEED II.

TransMedics previously submitted a PMA based on PROCEED II but it noted in submitted documents that it was withdrawn because of “fundamental disagreements with FDA” on the interpretation of a post hoc analysis with United Network for Organ Sharing registry data that identified increased all-cause mortality risk but comparable cardiac-related mortality in patients with OCS hearts.

During the marathon hearing, FDA officials presented several post hoc analyses, including one stratified by donor inclusion criteria, in which 30-day survival estimates were worse in recipients of single-criterion organs than for those receiving donor organs with multiple inclusion criteria (85% vs. 91.4%). In a second analysis, 2-year point estimates of survival also trended lower with donor organs having only one extended criterion.

Reported EXPAND CAP 6- and 12-month survival estimates were 100% and 93%, respectively, which was higher than EXPAND (93% and 84%), but there was substantial censoring (>50%) at 6 months and beyond, FDA officials said.

When EXPAND and CAP data were pooled, modeled survival curves shifted upward but there was a substantial site effect, with a single site contributing 46% of data, which may affect generalizability of the results, they noted.

“I voted yes for safety, no for efficacy, and no for approval and I’d just like to say I found this to be the most difficult vote in my experience on this panel,” John Hirshfeld, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “I was very concerned that the PROCEED data suggests a possible harm, and in the absence of an interpretable comparator for the EXPAND trial, it’s really not possible to decide if there’s efficacy.”

Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City (Mo.), said, “I voted no on safety; I’m not going to give the company a pass. I think their animal data was sorely lacking and a lot of issues over the last 10 years could have been addressed with some key animal studies.

“For efficacy and risk/benefit, I voted yes for both,” he said. “Had this been standard of care and only PROCEED II, I would have voted no, but I do think there are a lot of hearts that go in the bucket and this is a challenging population.”

More than a dozen physicians and patients spoke at the open public hearing about the potential for the device to expand donor heart utilization, including a recipient whose own father died while waiting on the transplant list. Only about 3 out of every 10 donated hearts are used for transplant. To ensure fair access, particularly for patients in rural areas, federal changes in 2020 mandate that organs be allocated to the sickest patients first.

Data showed that the OCS Heart System was associated with shorter waiting list times, compared with U.S. averages but longer preservation times than cold static preservation.

In all, 13% of accepted donor organs were subsequently turned down after OCS heart preservation. Lactate levels were cited as the principal reason for turn-down but, FDA officials said, the validity of using lactate as a marker for transplantability is unclear.

Pathologic analysis of OCS Heart turned-down donor hearts with stable antemortem hemodynamics, normal or near-normal anatomy and normal ventricular function by echocardiography, and autopsy findings of acute diffuse or multifocal myocardial damage “suggest that in an important proportion of cases the OCS Heart system did not provide effective organ preservation or its use caused severe myocardial damage to what might have been an acceptable graft for transplant,” said Andrew Farb, MD, chief medical officer of the FDA’s Office of Cardiovascular Devices.
 

Proposed indication

In the present PMA, the OCS Heart System is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the following characteristics: an expected cross-clamp or ischemic time of at least 4 hours because of donor or recipient characteristics; or an expected total cross-clamp time of at least 2 hours plus one of the following risk factors: donor age 55 or older, history of cardiac arrest and downtime of at least 20 minutes, history of alcoholism, history of diabetes, donor ejection fraction of 40%-50%,history of left ventricular hypertrophy, and donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no significant coronary artery disease

Several members voiced concern about “indication creep” should the device be approved by the FDA, and highlighted the 2-hour cross-clamp time plus wide-ranging risk factors.

“I’m a surgeon and I voted no on all three counts,” said Murray H. Kwon, MD, Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. “As far as risk/benefit, if it was just limited to one group – the 4-hour plus – I would say yes, but if you’re going to tell me that there’s a risk/benefit for the 2-hour with the alcoholic, I don’t know how that was proved in anything.”

Dr. Kwon was also troubled by lack of proper controls and by the one quarter of patients who ended up on mechanical circulatory support in the first 30 days after transplant. “I find that highly aberrant.”

Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, head of cardiovascular medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said the unmet need for patients with refractory, end-stage heart failure is challenging and quite emotional, but also voted no across the board, citing concerns about a lack of comparator in the EXPAND trials and overall out-of-body ischemic time.

“As it relates to risk/benefit, I thought long and hard about voting yes despite all the unknowns because of this emotion, but ultimately I voted no because of the secondary 2-hours plus alcoholism, diabetes, or minor coronary disease, in which the ischemic burden and ongoing lactate production concern me,” he said.

Although the panel decision is nonbinding, there was strong support from the committee members for a randomized, postapproval trial and more complete animal studies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After more than 10 hours of intense debate, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel gave its support to a premarket approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart system.

Courtesy Transmedics

The OCS Heart is a portable extracorporeal perfusion and monitoring system designed to keep a donor heart in a normothermic, beating state. The “heart in a box” technology allows donor hearts to be transported across longer distances than is possible with standard cold storage, which can safely preserve donor hearts for about 4 hours.

The Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee voted 12 to 5, with 1 abstention, that the benefits of the OCS Heart System outweigh its risks.

The panel voted in favor of the OCS Heart being effective (10 yes, 6 no, and 2 abstaining) and safe (9 yes, 7 no, 2 abstaining) but not without mixed feelings.

James Blankenship, MD, a cardiologist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, voted yes to all three questions but said: “If it had been compared to standard of care, I would have voted no to all three. But if it’s compared to getting an [left ventricular assist device] LVAD or not getting a heart at all, I would say the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Marc R. Katz, MD, chief of cardiothoracic surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, also gave universal support, noting that the rate of heart transplantations has been flat for years. “This is a big step forward toward being able to expand that number. Now all that said, it obviously was a less-than-perfect study and I do think there needs to be some constraints put on the utilization.”

The panel reviewed data from the single-arm OCS Heart EXPAND trial and associated EXPAND Continued Access Protocol (CAP), as well the sponsor’s first OCS Heart trial, PROCEED II.

EXPAND met its effectiveness endpoint, with 88% of donor hearts successfully transplanted, an 8% incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) 24 hours after transplantation, and 94.6% survival at 30 days.

Data from 41 patients with 30-day follow-up in the ongoing EXPAND CAP show 91% of donor hearts were utilized, a 2.4% incidence of severe PGD, and 100% 30-day survival.

The sponsor and the FDA clashed over changes made to the trial after the PMA was submitted, the appropriateness of the effectiveness outcome, and claims by the FDA that there was substantial overlap in demographic characteristics between the extended criteria donor hearts in the EXPAND trials and the standard criteria donor hearts in PROCEED II.

TransMedics previously submitted a PMA based on PROCEED II but it noted in submitted documents that it was withdrawn because of “fundamental disagreements with FDA” on the interpretation of a post hoc analysis with United Network for Organ Sharing registry data that identified increased all-cause mortality risk but comparable cardiac-related mortality in patients with OCS hearts.

During the marathon hearing, FDA officials presented several post hoc analyses, including one stratified by donor inclusion criteria, in which 30-day survival estimates were worse in recipients of single-criterion organs than for those receiving donor organs with multiple inclusion criteria (85% vs. 91.4%). In a second analysis, 2-year point estimates of survival also trended lower with donor organs having only one extended criterion.

Reported EXPAND CAP 6- and 12-month survival estimates were 100% and 93%, respectively, which was higher than EXPAND (93% and 84%), but there was substantial censoring (>50%) at 6 months and beyond, FDA officials said.

When EXPAND and CAP data were pooled, modeled survival curves shifted upward but there was a substantial site effect, with a single site contributing 46% of data, which may affect generalizability of the results, they noted.

“I voted yes for safety, no for efficacy, and no for approval and I’d just like to say I found this to be the most difficult vote in my experience on this panel,” John Hirshfeld, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “I was very concerned that the PROCEED data suggests a possible harm, and in the absence of an interpretable comparator for the EXPAND trial, it’s really not possible to decide if there’s efficacy.”

Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City (Mo.), said, “I voted no on safety; I’m not going to give the company a pass. I think their animal data was sorely lacking and a lot of issues over the last 10 years could have been addressed with some key animal studies.

“For efficacy and risk/benefit, I voted yes for both,” he said. “Had this been standard of care and only PROCEED II, I would have voted no, but I do think there are a lot of hearts that go in the bucket and this is a challenging population.”

More than a dozen physicians and patients spoke at the open public hearing about the potential for the device to expand donor heart utilization, including a recipient whose own father died while waiting on the transplant list. Only about 3 out of every 10 donated hearts are used for transplant. To ensure fair access, particularly for patients in rural areas, federal changes in 2020 mandate that organs be allocated to the sickest patients first.

Data showed that the OCS Heart System was associated with shorter waiting list times, compared with U.S. averages but longer preservation times than cold static preservation.

In all, 13% of accepted donor organs were subsequently turned down after OCS heart preservation. Lactate levels were cited as the principal reason for turn-down but, FDA officials said, the validity of using lactate as a marker for transplantability is unclear.

Pathologic analysis of OCS Heart turned-down donor hearts with stable antemortem hemodynamics, normal or near-normal anatomy and normal ventricular function by echocardiography, and autopsy findings of acute diffuse or multifocal myocardial damage “suggest that in an important proportion of cases the OCS Heart system did not provide effective organ preservation or its use caused severe myocardial damage to what might have been an acceptable graft for transplant,” said Andrew Farb, MD, chief medical officer of the FDA’s Office of Cardiovascular Devices.
 

Proposed indication

In the present PMA, the OCS Heart System is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the following characteristics: an expected cross-clamp or ischemic time of at least 4 hours because of donor or recipient characteristics; or an expected total cross-clamp time of at least 2 hours plus one of the following risk factors: donor age 55 or older, history of cardiac arrest and downtime of at least 20 minutes, history of alcoholism, history of diabetes, donor ejection fraction of 40%-50%,history of left ventricular hypertrophy, and donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no significant coronary artery disease

Several members voiced concern about “indication creep” should the device be approved by the FDA, and highlighted the 2-hour cross-clamp time plus wide-ranging risk factors.

“I’m a surgeon and I voted no on all three counts,” said Murray H. Kwon, MD, Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. “As far as risk/benefit, if it was just limited to one group – the 4-hour plus – I would say yes, but if you’re going to tell me that there’s a risk/benefit for the 2-hour with the alcoholic, I don’t know how that was proved in anything.”

Dr. Kwon was also troubled by lack of proper controls and by the one quarter of patients who ended up on mechanical circulatory support in the first 30 days after transplant. “I find that highly aberrant.”

Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, head of cardiovascular medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said the unmet need for patients with refractory, end-stage heart failure is challenging and quite emotional, but also voted no across the board, citing concerns about a lack of comparator in the EXPAND trials and overall out-of-body ischemic time.

“As it relates to risk/benefit, I thought long and hard about voting yes despite all the unknowns because of this emotion, but ultimately I voted no because of the secondary 2-hours plus alcoholism, diabetes, or minor coronary disease, in which the ischemic burden and ongoing lactate production concern me,” he said.

Although the panel decision is nonbinding, there was strong support from the committee members for a randomized, postapproval trial and more complete animal studies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) appear to have comparable outcomes, whether undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR), and when compared with TAVR in patients with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis, a new Medicare study finds.

An analysis of data from 1,159 Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatic aortic stenosis revealed that, over a median follow-up of 19 months, there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR vs. SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; P = .2).

Mortality was also similar after a median follow-up of 17 months between TAVR in patients with rheumatic aortic stenosis and 88,554 additional beneficiaries with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years; aHR, 0.87; P = .2).

“We need collaboration between industry and society leaders in developed countries to initiate a randomized, controlled trial to address the feasibility of TAVR in rheumatic heart disease in younger populations who aren’t surgical candidates or if there’s a lack of surgical capabilities in countries, but this is an encouraging first sign,” lead author Amgad Mentias, MD, MSc, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said in an interview.

Although the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) has fallen to less than 5% or so in the United States and Europe, it remains a significant problem in developing and low-income countries, with more than 1 million deaths per year, he noted. RHD patients typically present at younger ages, often with concomitant aortic regurgitation and mitral valve disease, but have less calcification than degenerative calcific aortic stenosis.

Commenting on the results, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, David F. Williams, PhD, said in an interview that “it is only now becoming possible to entertain the use of TAVR in such patients, and this paper demonstrates the feasibility of doing so.

“Although the study is based on geriatric patients of an industrialized country, it opens the door to the massive unmet clinical needs in poorer regions as well as emerging economies,” said Dr. Williams, a professor at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

The study included Medicare beneficiaries treated from October 2015 to December 2017 for rheumatic aortic stenosis (TAVR, n = 605; SAVR, n = 55) or nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (n = 88,554).

Among those with rheumatic disease, SAVR patients were younger than TAVR patients (73.4 vs. 79.4 years), had a lower prevalence of most comorbidities, and were less frail (median frailty score, 5.3 vs. 11.3).

SAVR was associated with significantly higher weighted risk for in-hospital acute kidney injury (22.3% vs. 11.9%), blood transfusion (19.8% vs. 7.6%), cardiogenic shock (5.7% vs. 1.5%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (21.1% vs. 2.2%), and had longer hospital stays (median, 8 vs. 3 days), whereas new permanent pacemaker implantations trended higher with TAVR (12.5% vs 7.2%).

The TAVR and SAVR groups had comparable rates of adjusted in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs. 3.5%), 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 3.2%), 30-day stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%), and 1-year mortality (13.1% vs. 8.9%).

Among the two TAVR cohorts, patients with rheumatic disease were younger than those with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (79.4 vs. 81.2 years); had a higher prevalence of heart failure, ischemic stroke, atrial fibrillation, and lung disease; and were more frail (median score, 11.3 vs. 6.9).

Still, there was no difference in weighted risk of in-hospital mortality (2.2% vs. 2.6%), 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 3.7%), 30-day stroke (2.0% vs. 3.3%), or 1-year mortality (16.0% vs. 17.1%) between TAVR patients with and without rheumatic stenosis.

“We didn’t have specific information on echo[cardiography], so we don’t know how that affected our results, but one of the encouraging points is that after a median follow-up of almost 2 years, none of the patients who had TAVR in the rheumatic valve and who survived required redo aortic valve replacement,” Dr. Mentias said. “It’s still short term but it shows that for the short to mid term, the valve is durable.”

Data were not available on paravalvular regurgitation, an Achilles heel for TAVR, but Dr. Mentias said rates of this complication have come down significantly in the past 2 years with modifications to newer-generation TAVR valves.

Dr. Williams and colleagues say one main limitation of the study also highlights the major shortcoming of contemporary TAVRs when treating patients with RHD: “namely, their inadequate suitability for AR [aortic regurgitation], the predominant rheumatic lesion of the aortic valve” in low- to middle-income countries.

They pointed out that patients needing an aortic valve where RHD is rampant are at least 30 years younger than the 79-year-old TAVR recipients in the study.

In a comment, Dr. Williams said there are several unanswered questions about the full impact TAVR could have in the treatment of young RHD patients in underprivileged regions. “These mainly concern the durability of the valves in individuals who could expect greater longevity than the typical heart valve patient in the USA, and the adaptation of transcatheter techniques to provide cost-effective treatment in regions that lack the usual sophisticated clinical infrastructure.”

Dr. Mentias received support from a National Research Service Award institutional grant to the Abboud Cardiovascular Research Center. Dr. Williams and coauthors are directors of Strait Access Technologies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) appear to have comparable outcomes, whether undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR), and when compared with TAVR in patients with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis, a new Medicare study finds.

An analysis of data from 1,159 Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatic aortic stenosis revealed that, over a median follow-up of 19 months, there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR vs. SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; P = .2).

Mortality was also similar after a median follow-up of 17 months between TAVR in patients with rheumatic aortic stenosis and 88,554 additional beneficiaries with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years; aHR, 0.87; P = .2).

“We need collaboration between industry and society leaders in developed countries to initiate a randomized, controlled trial to address the feasibility of TAVR in rheumatic heart disease in younger populations who aren’t surgical candidates or if there’s a lack of surgical capabilities in countries, but this is an encouraging first sign,” lead author Amgad Mentias, MD, MSc, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said in an interview.

Although the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) has fallen to less than 5% or so in the United States and Europe, it remains a significant problem in developing and low-income countries, with more than 1 million deaths per year, he noted. RHD patients typically present at younger ages, often with concomitant aortic regurgitation and mitral valve disease, but have less calcification than degenerative calcific aortic stenosis.

Commenting on the results, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, David F. Williams, PhD, said in an interview that “it is only now becoming possible to entertain the use of TAVR in such patients, and this paper demonstrates the feasibility of doing so.

“Although the study is based on geriatric patients of an industrialized country, it opens the door to the massive unmet clinical needs in poorer regions as well as emerging economies,” said Dr. Williams, a professor at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

The study included Medicare beneficiaries treated from October 2015 to December 2017 for rheumatic aortic stenosis (TAVR, n = 605; SAVR, n = 55) or nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (n = 88,554).

Among those with rheumatic disease, SAVR patients were younger than TAVR patients (73.4 vs. 79.4 years), had a lower prevalence of most comorbidities, and were less frail (median frailty score, 5.3 vs. 11.3).

SAVR was associated with significantly higher weighted risk for in-hospital acute kidney injury (22.3% vs. 11.9%), blood transfusion (19.8% vs. 7.6%), cardiogenic shock (5.7% vs. 1.5%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (21.1% vs. 2.2%), and had longer hospital stays (median, 8 vs. 3 days), whereas new permanent pacemaker implantations trended higher with TAVR (12.5% vs 7.2%).

The TAVR and SAVR groups had comparable rates of adjusted in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs. 3.5%), 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 3.2%), 30-day stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%), and 1-year mortality (13.1% vs. 8.9%).

Among the two TAVR cohorts, patients with rheumatic disease were younger than those with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (79.4 vs. 81.2 years); had a higher prevalence of heart failure, ischemic stroke, atrial fibrillation, and lung disease; and were more frail (median score, 11.3 vs. 6.9).

Still, there was no difference in weighted risk of in-hospital mortality (2.2% vs. 2.6%), 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 3.7%), 30-day stroke (2.0% vs. 3.3%), or 1-year mortality (16.0% vs. 17.1%) between TAVR patients with and without rheumatic stenosis.

“We didn’t have specific information on echo[cardiography], so we don’t know how that affected our results, but one of the encouraging points is that after a median follow-up of almost 2 years, none of the patients who had TAVR in the rheumatic valve and who survived required redo aortic valve replacement,” Dr. Mentias said. “It’s still short term but it shows that for the short to mid term, the valve is durable.”

Data were not available on paravalvular regurgitation, an Achilles heel for TAVR, but Dr. Mentias said rates of this complication have come down significantly in the past 2 years with modifications to newer-generation TAVR valves.

Dr. Williams and colleagues say one main limitation of the study also highlights the major shortcoming of contemporary TAVRs when treating patients with RHD: “namely, their inadequate suitability for AR [aortic regurgitation], the predominant rheumatic lesion of the aortic valve” in low- to middle-income countries.

They pointed out that patients needing an aortic valve where RHD is rampant are at least 30 years younger than the 79-year-old TAVR recipients in the study.

In a comment, Dr. Williams said there are several unanswered questions about the full impact TAVR could have in the treatment of young RHD patients in underprivileged regions. “These mainly concern the durability of the valves in individuals who could expect greater longevity than the typical heart valve patient in the USA, and the adaptation of transcatheter techniques to provide cost-effective treatment in regions that lack the usual sophisticated clinical infrastructure.”

Dr. Mentias received support from a National Research Service Award institutional grant to the Abboud Cardiovascular Research Center. Dr. Williams and coauthors are directors of Strait Access Technologies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) appear to have comparable outcomes, whether undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR), and when compared with TAVR in patients with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis, a new Medicare study finds.

An analysis of data from 1,159 Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatic aortic stenosis revealed that, over a median follow-up of 19 months, there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR vs. SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; P = .2).

Mortality was also similar after a median follow-up of 17 months between TAVR in patients with rheumatic aortic stenosis and 88,554 additional beneficiaries with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years; aHR, 0.87; P = .2).

“We need collaboration between industry and society leaders in developed countries to initiate a randomized, controlled trial to address the feasibility of TAVR in rheumatic heart disease in younger populations who aren’t surgical candidates or if there’s a lack of surgical capabilities in countries, but this is an encouraging first sign,” lead author Amgad Mentias, MD, MSc, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said in an interview.

Although the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) has fallen to less than 5% or so in the United States and Europe, it remains a significant problem in developing and low-income countries, with more than 1 million deaths per year, he noted. RHD patients typically present at younger ages, often with concomitant aortic regurgitation and mitral valve disease, but have less calcification than degenerative calcific aortic stenosis.

Commenting on the results, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, David F. Williams, PhD, said in an interview that “it is only now becoming possible to entertain the use of TAVR in such patients, and this paper demonstrates the feasibility of doing so.

“Although the study is based on geriatric patients of an industrialized country, it opens the door to the massive unmet clinical needs in poorer regions as well as emerging economies,” said Dr. Williams, a professor at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

The study included Medicare beneficiaries treated from October 2015 to December 2017 for rheumatic aortic stenosis (TAVR, n = 605; SAVR, n = 55) or nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (n = 88,554).

Among those with rheumatic disease, SAVR patients were younger than TAVR patients (73.4 vs. 79.4 years), had a lower prevalence of most comorbidities, and were less frail (median frailty score, 5.3 vs. 11.3).

SAVR was associated with significantly higher weighted risk for in-hospital acute kidney injury (22.3% vs. 11.9%), blood transfusion (19.8% vs. 7.6%), cardiogenic shock (5.7% vs. 1.5%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (21.1% vs. 2.2%), and had longer hospital stays (median, 8 vs. 3 days), whereas new permanent pacemaker implantations trended higher with TAVR (12.5% vs 7.2%).

The TAVR and SAVR groups had comparable rates of adjusted in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs. 3.5%), 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 3.2%), 30-day stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%), and 1-year mortality (13.1% vs. 8.9%).

Among the two TAVR cohorts, patients with rheumatic disease were younger than those with nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (79.4 vs. 81.2 years); had a higher prevalence of heart failure, ischemic stroke, atrial fibrillation, and lung disease; and were more frail (median score, 11.3 vs. 6.9).

Still, there was no difference in weighted risk of in-hospital mortality (2.2% vs. 2.6%), 30-day mortality (3.6% vs. 3.7%), 30-day stroke (2.0% vs. 3.3%), or 1-year mortality (16.0% vs. 17.1%) between TAVR patients with and without rheumatic stenosis.

“We didn’t have specific information on echo[cardiography], so we don’t know how that affected our results, but one of the encouraging points is that after a median follow-up of almost 2 years, none of the patients who had TAVR in the rheumatic valve and who survived required redo aortic valve replacement,” Dr. Mentias said. “It’s still short term but it shows that for the short to mid term, the valve is durable.”

Data were not available on paravalvular regurgitation, an Achilles heel for TAVR, but Dr. Mentias said rates of this complication have come down significantly in the past 2 years with modifications to newer-generation TAVR valves.

Dr. Williams and colleagues say one main limitation of the study also highlights the major shortcoming of contemporary TAVRs when treating patients with RHD: “namely, their inadequate suitability for AR [aortic regurgitation], the predominant rheumatic lesion of the aortic valve” in low- to middle-income countries.

They pointed out that patients needing an aortic valve where RHD is rampant are at least 30 years younger than the 79-year-old TAVR recipients in the study.

In a comment, Dr. Williams said there are several unanswered questions about the full impact TAVR could have in the treatment of young RHD patients in underprivileged regions. “These mainly concern the durability of the valves in individuals who could expect greater longevity than the typical heart valve patient in the USA, and the adaptation of transcatheter techniques to provide cost-effective treatment in regions that lack the usual sophisticated clinical infrastructure.”

Dr. Mentias received support from a National Research Service Award institutional grant to the Abboud Cardiovascular Research Center. Dr. Williams and coauthors are directors of Strait Access Technologies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. 

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. 

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. 

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

Cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors are increased among transgender youths, compared with youths who are not transgender. Elevations in lipid levels and body mass index (BMI) also occur in adult transgender patients, new research shows.

“This is the first study of its size in the United States of which we are aware that looks at the odds of youth with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria having medical diagnoses that relate to overall metabolic and cardiovascular health,” first author Anna Valentine, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, said in a press statement.

Although previous studies have shown that among transgender adults, BMI is higher and there is an increased risk for cardiovascular events, such as stroke or heart attack, compared with nontransgender people, research on adolescent transgender patients has been lacking.

With a recent survey showing that nearly 2% of adolescents identify as transgender, interest in health outcomes among younger patients is high.

To investigate, Dr. Valentine, and colleagues evaluated data from the PEDSnet pediatric database on 4,177 youths who had received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The participants had been enrolled at six sites from 2009 to 2019. The researchers compared these patients in a ratio of 1:4 with 16,664 control persons who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. They reported their findings as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For the propensity-score analysis, participants were matched according to year of birth, age at last visit, site, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and duration in the database.

In both the transgender and control groups, about 66% were female at birth, 73% were White, and 9% Hispanic. For both groups, the average age was 16.2 years at the last visit. The average duration in the database was 7 years.
 

Study didn’t distinguish between those receiving and those not receiving gender-affirming hormones

In the retrospective study, among those who identified as transgender, the rates of diagnoses of dyslipidemia (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .0001) and metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.9; P = .0086) were significantly higher, compared with those without gender dysphoria.

Among the transgender male patients (born female) but not transgender female patients (born male), rates of diagnoses of overweight/obesity (OR, 1.7; P < .0001) and polycystic ovary syndrome were higher (OR, 1.9, P = .0006), compared with controls.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy, such as with testosterone or estradiol, is among the suspected culprits for the cardiovascular effects. However, importantly, this study did not differentiate between patients who had received estradiol or testosterone for gender affirmation and those who had not, Dr. Valentine said.

“We don’t know [whether gender-affirming hormone therapy is a cause], as we have not looked at this yet,” she said in an interview. “We are looking at that in our next analyses and will be including that in our future publication.

“We’ll also be looking at the relationship between having overweight/obesity and the other diagnoses that influence cardiovascular health (high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, and abnormal cholesterol), as that could certainly be playing a role as well,” she said.

For many transgender patients, gender-affirming hormone therapy is lifelong. One question that needs to be evaluated concerns whether the dose of such therapy has a role on cardiovascular effects and if so, whether adjustments could be made without compromising the therapeutic effect, Dr. Valentine noted.

“This is an important question, and future research is needed to evaluate whether doses [of gender-affirming hormones] are related to cardiometabolic outcomes,” she said.

Potential confounders in the study include the fact that rates of overweight and obesity are higher among youths with gender dysphoria. This can in itself can increase the risk for other disorders, Dr. Valentine noted.

Furthermore, rates of mental health comorbidities are higher among youths with gender dysphoria. One consequence of this may be that they engage in less physical activity, she said.
 

Hormone therapy, health care disparities, or both could explain risk

In commenting on the study, Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said that although similar cardiovascular effects are known to occur in transgender adults as well, they may or may not be hormone related. Other factors can increase the risk.

“With transgender adults, any differences in lipids or cardiac risk factors relative to cisgender people might be attributable either to hormone therapy or to health care disparities,” he said in an interview.

“The data are mixed. It may be that most differences relate to lack of access to care and to mistreatment by society,” he said. “Even studies that focus on hormones see a worsened situation for trans women versus trans men.”

Other recent research that shows potential cardiovascular effects among adult transgender men includes a study of more than 1,000 transgender men (born female) who received testosterone. That study, which was also presented at the ENDO meeting and was reported by this news organization, found an increased risk for high hematocrit levels, which could lead to a thrombotic event.

However, a study published in Pediatrics, which was also reported by this news organization, that included 611 transgender youths who had taken gender-affirming hormone therapy for more than a year found no increased risk for thrombosis, even in the presence of thrombosis risk factors, including obesity, tobacco use, and family history of thrombosis. However, the senior author of that study pointed out that the duration of follow-up in that study was relatively short, which may have been why they did not find an increased risk for thrombosis.

Dr. Safer noted that transgender youths and adults alike face a host of cultural factors that could play a role in increased cardiovascular risks.

“For adults, the major candidate explanations for worse BMI and cardiac risk factors are societal mistreatment, and for trans women specifically, progestins. For youth, the major candidate explanations are societal mistreatment and lack of access to athletics,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Safer disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors are increased among transgender youths, compared with youths who are not transgender. Elevations in lipid levels and body mass index (BMI) also occur in adult transgender patients, new research shows.

“This is the first study of its size in the United States of which we are aware that looks at the odds of youth with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria having medical diagnoses that relate to overall metabolic and cardiovascular health,” first author Anna Valentine, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, said in a press statement.

Although previous studies have shown that among transgender adults, BMI is higher and there is an increased risk for cardiovascular events, such as stroke or heart attack, compared with nontransgender people, research on adolescent transgender patients has been lacking.

With a recent survey showing that nearly 2% of adolescents identify as transgender, interest in health outcomes among younger patients is high.

To investigate, Dr. Valentine, and colleagues evaluated data from the PEDSnet pediatric database on 4,177 youths who had received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The participants had been enrolled at six sites from 2009 to 2019. The researchers compared these patients in a ratio of 1:4 with 16,664 control persons who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. They reported their findings as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For the propensity-score analysis, participants were matched according to year of birth, age at last visit, site, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and duration in the database.

In both the transgender and control groups, about 66% were female at birth, 73% were White, and 9% Hispanic. For both groups, the average age was 16.2 years at the last visit. The average duration in the database was 7 years.
 

Study didn’t distinguish between those receiving and those not receiving gender-affirming hormones

In the retrospective study, among those who identified as transgender, the rates of diagnoses of dyslipidemia (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .0001) and metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.9; P = .0086) were significantly higher, compared with those without gender dysphoria.

Among the transgender male patients (born female) but not transgender female patients (born male), rates of diagnoses of overweight/obesity (OR, 1.7; P < .0001) and polycystic ovary syndrome were higher (OR, 1.9, P = .0006), compared with controls.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy, such as with testosterone or estradiol, is among the suspected culprits for the cardiovascular effects. However, importantly, this study did not differentiate between patients who had received estradiol or testosterone for gender affirmation and those who had not, Dr. Valentine said.

“We don’t know [whether gender-affirming hormone therapy is a cause], as we have not looked at this yet,” she said in an interview. “We are looking at that in our next analyses and will be including that in our future publication.

“We’ll also be looking at the relationship between having overweight/obesity and the other diagnoses that influence cardiovascular health (high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, and abnormal cholesterol), as that could certainly be playing a role as well,” she said.

For many transgender patients, gender-affirming hormone therapy is lifelong. One question that needs to be evaluated concerns whether the dose of such therapy has a role on cardiovascular effects and if so, whether adjustments could be made without compromising the therapeutic effect, Dr. Valentine noted.

“This is an important question, and future research is needed to evaluate whether doses [of gender-affirming hormones] are related to cardiometabolic outcomes,” she said.

Potential confounders in the study include the fact that rates of overweight and obesity are higher among youths with gender dysphoria. This can in itself can increase the risk for other disorders, Dr. Valentine noted.

Furthermore, rates of mental health comorbidities are higher among youths with gender dysphoria. One consequence of this may be that they engage in less physical activity, she said.
 

Hormone therapy, health care disparities, or both could explain risk

In commenting on the study, Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said that although similar cardiovascular effects are known to occur in transgender adults as well, they may or may not be hormone related. Other factors can increase the risk.

“With transgender adults, any differences in lipids or cardiac risk factors relative to cisgender people might be attributable either to hormone therapy or to health care disparities,” he said in an interview.

“The data are mixed. It may be that most differences relate to lack of access to care and to mistreatment by society,” he said. “Even studies that focus on hormones see a worsened situation for trans women versus trans men.”

Other recent research that shows potential cardiovascular effects among adult transgender men includes a study of more than 1,000 transgender men (born female) who received testosterone. That study, which was also presented at the ENDO meeting and was reported by this news organization, found an increased risk for high hematocrit levels, which could lead to a thrombotic event.

However, a study published in Pediatrics, which was also reported by this news organization, that included 611 transgender youths who had taken gender-affirming hormone therapy for more than a year found no increased risk for thrombosis, even in the presence of thrombosis risk factors, including obesity, tobacco use, and family history of thrombosis. However, the senior author of that study pointed out that the duration of follow-up in that study was relatively short, which may have been why they did not find an increased risk for thrombosis.

Dr. Safer noted that transgender youths and adults alike face a host of cultural factors that could play a role in increased cardiovascular risks.

“For adults, the major candidate explanations for worse BMI and cardiac risk factors are societal mistreatment, and for trans women specifically, progestins. For youth, the major candidate explanations are societal mistreatment and lack of access to athletics,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Safer disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors are increased among transgender youths, compared with youths who are not transgender. Elevations in lipid levels and body mass index (BMI) also occur in adult transgender patients, new research shows.

“This is the first study of its size in the United States of which we are aware that looks at the odds of youth with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria having medical diagnoses that relate to overall metabolic and cardiovascular health,” first author Anna Valentine, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, said in a press statement.

Although previous studies have shown that among transgender adults, BMI is higher and there is an increased risk for cardiovascular events, such as stroke or heart attack, compared with nontransgender people, research on adolescent transgender patients has been lacking.

With a recent survey showing that nearly 2% of adolescents identify as transgender, interest in health outcomes among younger patients is high.

To investigate, Dr. Valentine, and colleagues evaluated data from the PEDSnet pediatric database on 4,177 youths who had received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The participants had been enrolled at six sites from 2009 to 2019. The researchers compared these patients in a ratio of 1:4 with 16,664 control persons who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. They reported their findings as a poster at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

For the propensity-score analysis, participants were matched according to year of birth, age at last visit, site, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and duration in the database.

In both the transgender and control groups, about 66% were female at birth, 73% were White, and 9% Hispanic. For both groups, the average age was 16.2 years at the last visit. The average duration in the database was 7 years.
 

Study didn’t distinguish between those receiving and those not receiving gender-affirming hormones

In the retrospective study, among those who identified as transgender, the rates of diagnoses of dyslipidemia (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .0001) and metabolic syndrome (OR, 1.9; P = .0086) were significantly higher, compared with those without gender dysphoria.

Among the transgender male patients (born female) but not transgender female patients (born male), rates of diagnoses of overweight/obesity (OR, 1.7; P < .0001) and polycystic ovary syndrome were higher (OR, 1.9, P = .0006), compared with controls.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy, such as with testosterone or estradiol, is among the suspected culprits for the cardiovascular effects. However, importantly, this study did not differentiate between patients who had received estradiol or testosterone for gender affirmation and those who had not, Dr. Valentine said.

“We don’t know [whether gender-affirming hormone therapy is a cause], as we have not looked at this yet,” she said in an interview. “We are looking at that in our next analyses and will be including that in our future publication.

“We’ll also be looking at the relationship between having overweight/obesity and the other diagnoses that influence cardiovascular health (high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, and abnormal cholesterol), as that could certainly be playing a role as well,” she said.

For many transgender patients, gender-affirming hormone therapy is lifelong. One question that needs to be evaluated concerns whether the dose of such therapy has a role on cardiovascular effects and if so, whether adjustments could be made without compromising the therapeutic effect, Dr. Valentine noted.

“This is an important question, and future research is needed to evaluate whether doses [of gender-affirming hormones] are related to cardiometabolic outcomes,” she said.

Potential confounders in the study include the fact that rates of overweight and obesity are higher among youths with gender dysphoria. This can in itself can increase the risk for other disorders, Dr. Valentine noted.

Furthermore, rates of mental health comorbidities are higher among youths with gender dysphoria. One consequence of this may be that they engage in less physical activity, she said.
 

Hormone therapy, health care disparities, or both could explain risk

In commenting on the study, Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said that although similar cardiovascular effects are known to occur in transgender adults as well, they may or may not be hormone related. Other factors can increase the risk.

“With transgender adults, any differences in lipids or cardiac risk factors relative to cisgender people might be attributable either to hormone therapy or to health care disparities,” he said in an interview.

“The data are mixed. It may be that most differences relate to lack of access to care and to mistreatment by society,” he said. “Even studies that focus on hormones see a worsened situation for trans women versus trans men.”

Other recent research that shows potential cardiovascular effects among adult transgender men includes a study of more than 1,000 transgender men (born female) who received testosterone. That study, which was also presented at the ENDO meeting and was reported by this news organization, found an increased risk for high hematocrit levels, which could lead to a thrombotic event.

However, a study published in Pediatrics, which was also reported by this news organization, that included 611 transgender youths who had taken gender-affirming hormone therapy for more than a year found no increased risk for thrombosis, even in the presence of thrombosis risk factors, including obesity, tobacco use, and family history of thrombosis. However, the senior author of that study pointed out that the duration of follow-up in that study was relatively short, which may have been why they did not find an increased risk for thrombosis.

Dr. Safer noted that transgender youths and adults alike face a host of cultural factors that could play a role in increased cardiovascular risks.

“For adults, the major candidate explanations for worse BMI and cardiac risk factors are societal mistreatment, and for trans women specifically, progestins. For youth, the major candidate explanations are societal mistreatment and lack of access to athletics,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Safer disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.

Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.

After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.

Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.

It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.

[email protected]

Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.

Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.

After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.

Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.

It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.

[email protected]

Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.

Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most common among the non-CV causes was malignancy at 13.9% of all deaths in a T2DM population at high/very high risk for CV disease (n = 16,492), followed by infection (9.3%), the members of the TIMI Study Group noted.

After variables independently associated with overall mortality were identified, a subdistribution of competing risks was constructed using a competing-risk analysis based on the proportional hazards model, they explained.

Prior heart failure was the clinical variable most associated with CV death and could, along with older age, worse glycemic control, prior CV events, peripheral artery disease, and kidney complications, “identify a subgroup of T2DM patients at high risk of mortality who are likely to achieve the greatest benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors and newer glucose-lowering agents,” the investigators wrote.

It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Dr. Cavallari and associates said.

[email protected]