Cardiology News

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and readmissions are on the rise in the United States, reversing a multiyear downward trend, a new national cohort study shows.

Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.

Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.

Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).

“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.

“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.

Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”

As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.

In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.

The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.

“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.

The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.

A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.

The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.

“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.

One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and readmissions are on the rise in the United States, reversing a multiyear downward trend, a new national cohort study shows.

Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.

Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.

Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).

“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.

“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.

Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”

As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.

In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.

The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.

“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.

The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.

A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.

The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.

“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.

One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and readmissions are on the rise in the United States, reversing a multiyear downward trend, a new national cohort study shows.

Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.

Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.

Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).

“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.

“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.

Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”

As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.

In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.

The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.

“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.

The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.

A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.

The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.

“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.

One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.

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

A commercial for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Dexcom G6 shown during the Super Bowl has provoked strong reactions in the diabetes community, both positive and negative.

The 30-second ad, which aired between the first two quarters of the American football game yesterday, features singer-songwriter-actor Nick Jonas, who has type 1 diabetes. During the ad, Mr. Jonas asks – with so much technology available today, including drones that deliver packages and self-driving cars – why are people with diabetes still pricking their fingers to test their blood sugar?

Mr. Jonas goes on to demonstrate the Dexcom G6 smartphone glucose app as it displays three different glucose levels including two trending upward, explaining: “It shows your glucose right in your phone, and where it’s heading, without fingersticks. Finally, technology that makes it easier to manage our diabetes.”

Diabetes type or insulin treatment are not mentioned in the ad, despite the fact that most insurance plans typically only cover CGMs for people with type 1 diabetes and sometimes for those with type 2 diabetes who take multiple daily insulin doses (given the risk for hypoglycemia).
 

Ad prompts mixed reaction on social media

Reactions rolled in on Twitter after the ad debuted Feb. 2, and then again after it aired during the game.

Some people who have type 1 diabetes themselves or have children with the disease who use the product were thrilled.

“Thanks to @NickJonas for his advocacy on T1. My 11-year old has been on the Dexcom for 3 weeks. For a newly diagnosed kid, it removes a lot of anxiety (and for his parents, too!) Plus, he is thrilled his meter has a Super Bowl commercial!” tweeted @KatisJewell.

Another positive tweet, from @rturnerroy, read: “@nickjonas Thank you for bringing representation to #type1diabetes. And hey #Dexcom, you’re the best.”

But many others were critical, both of Jonas and Dexcom. @hb_herrick tweeted: “Diabetes awareness is fantastic. Dexcom being able to afford Nick Jonas for a #SuperBowl commercial is not. This is a health care product. Make it more affordable for those who need it.”

Another Twitter user, @universeofdust, tweeted: “Feeling ambivalent about the #Dexcom ad tbh. I love the awareness & representation. But also not a big fan of dexcom spending $5.5 mill+ to make the CGM seem like this ~cool & trendy~ thing when many type 1s can’t afford their insulin, let alone a CGM.”

And @andricheli wrote: “Only people lucky enough to have excellent insurance and be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs have access. Many others do not.”

And in another tweet the same user said, “The #Dexcom is an amazing device. It’s literally lifesaving and life extending. But it’s also very expensive and not available to everyone. Maybe instead of spending $5 mil on a Super Bowl ad, @dexcom should spend that on getting Dex into the handle of people who need it.”

Others, including @1hitwonderdate, criticized Mr. Jonas directly, asking him: “As someone who has struggled with diabetes and is trying to support themselves along with millions of others, why not use this platform to help those who can’t afford their supplies or are rationing them?!”


 

Dexcom and Jonas’ organization respond

This news organization reached out to both Dexcom and to Beyond Type 1, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Mr. Jonas, for comment. Both emailed responses.

Regarding the intended audience for the ad, Dexcom acknowledged that it hoped to reach a much wider group than just people with type 1 diabetes or even just insulin users.

“We believe our CGM technology has the ability to empower any person with diabetes and significantly improve their treatment and quality of life, whether they are using insulin or not,” the company said, adding that the ad was also aimed at “loved ones, caregivers, and even health care professionals who need to know about this technology.”

According to Dexcom, the G6 is covered by 99% of commercial insurance in the United States, in addition to Medicare, and by Medicaid in more than 40 states. Over 70% of Dexcom patients with pharmacy coverage in the United States pay under $60 per month for CGM, and a third pay $0 out-of-pocket.

“That said, we know there’s more to be done to improve access, and we are working with several partners to broaden access to Dexcom CGM, especially for people with type 2 diabetes not on mealtime insulin,” the company noted.

Beyond Type 1 responded to the criticisms about Mr. Jonas personally, noting that the celebrity is, in fact, heavily involved in advocacy.

“Nick was involved in the launch of GetInsulin.org this past October,” they said. “GetInsulin.org is a tool created by Beyond Type 1 to connect people with diabetes in the United States to the insulin access and affordability options that match their unique circumstances. ... Beyond Type 1 will continue driving awareness of short-term solutions related to insulin access and affordability while fighting for systemic change.”

The organization “is also advocating for systemic payment policies that will make devices less expensive and avoid the same pitfalls (and rising prices) as the drug pricing system in the U.S.”

Mr. Jonas himself appears aware of the concerns.

Is 2021’s most expensive Super Bowl ad justified?

Meanwhile, in a piece in Esquire, Dave Holmes, who has type 1 diabetes, weighs up the pros and cons of the ad.

He writes: “While Jonas makes it look fun and easy to use a Dexcom G6 – a program to just get with like you would a drone or LED eyelashes – the process of acquiring one is complicated and often very expensive, even for people with good insurance. Which makes the year’s most expensive ad buy, for a product that only a small percentage of the U.S. population needs, confusing to me and others.”

Mr. Holmes also spoke with Craig Stubing, founder of the Beta Cell Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to educate and empower those with type 1 diabetes.

“Spending all this money on an ad, when people’s lives are at stake. I don’t know if offensive is the right word, but it seems out of touch with the reality that their patients are facing,” Mr. Stubing told Mr. Holmes.

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

A commercial for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Dexcom G6 shown during the Super Bowl has provoked strong reactions in the diabetes community, both positive and negative.

The 30-second ad, which aired between the first two quarters of the American football game yesterday, features singer-songwriter-actor Nick Jonas, who has type 1 diabetes. During the ad, Mr. Jonas asks – with so much technology available today, including drones that deliver packages and self-driving cars – why are people with diabetes still pricking their fingers to test their blood sugar?

Mr. Jonas goes on to demonstrate the Dexcom G6 smartphone glucose app as it displays three different glucose levels including two trending upward, explaining: “It shows your glucose right in your phone, and where it’s heading, without fingersticks. Finally, technology that makes it easier to manage our diabetes.”

Diabetes type or insulin treatment are not mentioned in the ad, despite the fact that most insurance plans typically only cover CGMs for people with type 1 diabetes and sometimes for those with type 2 diabetes who take multiple daily insulin doses (given the risk for hypoglycemia).
 

Ad prompts mixed reaction on social media

Reactions rolled in on Twitter after the ad debuted Feb. 2, and then again after it aired during the game.

Some people who have type 1 diabetes themselves or have children with the disease who use the product were thrilled.

“Thanks to @NickJonas for his advocacy on T1. My 11-year old has been on the Dexcom for 3 weeks. For a newly diagnosed kid, it removes a lot of anxiety (and for his parents, too!) Plus, he is thrilled his meter has a Super Bowl commercial!” tweeted @KatisJewell.

Another positive tweet, from @rturnerroy, read: “@nickjonas Thank you for bringing representation to #type1diabetes. And hey #Dexcom, you’re the best.”

But many others were critical, both of Jonas and Dexcom. @hb_herrick tweeted: “Diabetes awareness is fantastic. Dexcom being able to afford Nick Jonas for a #SuperBowl commercial is not. This is a health care product. Make it more affordable for those who need it.”

Another Twitter user, @universeofdust, tweeted: “Feeling ambivalent about the #Dexcom ad tbh. I love the awareness & representation. But also not a big fan of dexcom spending $5.5 mill+ to make the CGM seem like this ~cool & trendy~ thing when many type 1s can’t afford their insulin, let alone a CGM.”

And @andricheli wrote: “Only people lucky enough to have excellent insurance and be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs have access. Many others do not.”

And in another tweet the same user said, “The #Dexcom is an amazing device. It’s literally lifesaving and life extending. But it’s also very expensive and not available to everyone. Maybe instead of spending $5 mil on a Super Bowl ad, @dexcom should spend that on getting Dex into the handle of people who need it.”

Others, including @1hitwonderdate, criticized Mr. Jonas directly, asking him: “As someone who has struggled with diabetes and is trying to support themselves along with millions of others, why not use this platform to help those who can’t afford their supplies or are rationing them?!”


 

Dexcom and Jonas’ organization respond

This news organization reached out to both Dexcom and to Beyond Type 1, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Mr. Jonas, for comment. Both emailed responses.

Regarding the intended audience for the ad, Dexcom acknowledged that it hoped to reach a much wider group than just people with type 1 diabetes or even just insulin users.

“We believe our CGM technology has the ability to empower any person with diabetes and significantly improve their treatment and quality of life, whether they are using insulin or not,” the company said, adding that the ad was also aimed at “loved ones, caregivers, and even health care professionals who need to know about this technology.”

According to Dexcom, the G6 is covered by 99% of commercial insurance in the United States, in addition to Medicare, and by Medicaid in more than 40 states. Over 70% of Dexcom patients with pharmacy coverage in the United States pay under $60 per month for CGM, and a third pay $0 out-of-pocket.

“That said, we know there’s more to be done to improve access, and we are working with several partners to broaden access to Dexcom CGM, especially for people with type 2 diabetes not on mealtime insulin,” the company noted.

Beyond Type 1 responded to the criticisms about Mr. Jonas personally, noting that the celebrity is, in fact, heavily involved in advocacy.

“Nick was involved in the launch of GetInsulin.org this past October,” they said. “GetInsulin.org is a tool created by Beyond Type 1 to connect people with diabetes in the United States to the insulin access and affordability options that match their unique circumstances. ... Beyond Type 1 will continue driving awareness of short-term solutions related to insulin access and affordability while fighting for systemic change.”

The organization “is also advocating for systemic payment policies that will make devices less expensive and avoid the same pitfalls (and rising prices) as the drug pricing system in the U.S.”

Mr. Jonas himself appears aware of the concerns.

Is 2021’s most expensive Super Bowl ad justified?

Meanwhile, in a piece in Esquire, Dave Holmes, who has type 1 diabetes, weighs up the pros and cons of the ad.

He writes: “While Jonas makes it look fun and easy to use a Dexcom G6 – a program to just get with like you would a drone or LED eyelashes – the process of acquiring one is complicated and often very expensive, even for people with good insurance. Which makes the year’s most expensive ad buy, for a product that only a small percentage of the U.S. population needs, confusing to me and others.”

Mr. Holmes also spoke with Craig Stubing, founder of the Beta Cell Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to educate and empower those with type 1 diabetes.

“Spending all this money on an ad, when people’s lives are at stake. I don’t know if offensive is the right word, but it seems out of touch with the reality that their patients are facing,” Mr. Stubing told Mr. Holmes.

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

A commercial for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Dexcom G6 shown during the Super Bowl has provoked strong reactions in the diabetes community, both positive and negative.

The 30-second ad, which aired between the first two quarters of the American football game yesterday, features singer-songwriter-actor Nick Jonas, who has type 1 diabetes. During the ad, Mr. Jonas asks – with so much technology available today, including drones that deliver packages and self-driving cars – why are people with diabetes still pricking their fingers to test their blood sugar?

Mr. Jonas goes on to demonstrate the Dexcom G6 smartphone glucose app as it displays three different glucose levels including two trending upward, explaining: “It shows your glucose right in your phone, and where it’s heading, without fingersticks. Finally, technology that makes it easier to manage our diabetes.”

Diabetes type or insulin treatment are not mentioned in the ad, despite the fact that most insurance plans typically only cover CGMs for people with type 1 diabetes and sometimes for those with type 2 diabetes who take multiple daily insulin doses (given the risk for hypoglycemia).
 

Ad prompts mixed reaction on social media

Reactions rolled in on Twitter after the ad debuted Feb. 2, and then again after it aired during the game.

Some people who have type 1 diabetes themselves or have children with the disease who use the product were thrilled.

“Thanks to @NickJonas for his advocacy on T1. My 11-year old has been on the Dexcom for 3 weeks. For a newly diagnosed kid, it removes a lot of anxiety (and for his parents, too!) Plus, he is thrilled his meter has a Super Bowl commercial!” tweeted @KatisJewell.

Another positive tweet, from @rturnerroy, read: “@nickjonas Thank you for bringing representation to #type1diabetes. And hey #Dexcom, you’re the best.”

But many others were critical, both of Jonas and Dexcom. @hb_herrick tweeted: “Diabetes awareness is fantastic. Dexcom being able to afford Nick Jonas for a #SuperBowl commercial is not. This is a health care product. Make it more affordable for those who need it.”

Another Twitter user, @universeofdust, tweeted: “Feeling ambivalent about the #Dexcom ad tbh. I love the awareness & representation. But also not a big fan of dexcom spending $5.5 mill+ to make the CGM seem like this ~cool & trendy~ thing when many type 1s can’t afford their insulin, let alone a CGM.”

And @andricheli wrote: “Only people lucky enough to have excellent insurance and be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs have access. Many others do not.”

And in another tweet the same user said, “The #Dexcom is an amazing device. It’s literally lifesaving and life extending. But it’s also very expensive and not available to everyone. Maybe instead of spending $5 mil on a Super Bowl ad, @dexcom should spend that on getting Dex into the handle of people who need it.”

Others, including @1hitwonderdate, criticized Mr. Jonas directly, asking him: “As someone who has struggled with diabetes and is trying to support themselves along with millions of others, why not use this platform to help those who can’t afford their supplies or are rationing them?!”


 

Dexcom and Jonas’ organization respond

This news organization reached out to both Dexcom and to Beyond Type 1, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Mr. Jonas, for comment. Both emailed responses.

Regarding the intended audience for the ad, Dexcom acknowledged that it hoped to reach a much wider group than just people with type 1 diabetes or even just insulin users.

“We believe our CGM technology has the ability to empower any person with diabetes and significantly improve their treatment and quality of life, whether they are using insulin or not,” the company said, adding that the ad was also aimed at “loved ones, caregivers, and even health care professionals who need to know about this technology.”

According to Dexcom, the G6 is covered by 99% of commercial insurance in the United States, in addition to Medicare, and by Medicaid in more than 40 states. Over 70% of Dexcom patients with pharmacy coverage in the United States pay under $60 per month for CGM, and a third pay $0 out-of-pocket.

“That said, we know there’s more to be done to improve access, and we are working with several partners to broaden access to Dexcom CGM, especially for people with type 2 diabetes not on mealtime insulin,” the company noted.

Beyond Type 1 responded to the criticisms about Mr. Jonas personally, noting that the celebrity is, in fact, heavily involved in advocacy.

“Nick was involved in the launch of GetInsulin.org this past October,” they said. “GetInsulin.org is a tool created by Beyond Type 1 to connect people with diabetes in the United States to the insulin access and affordability options that match their unique circumstances. ... Beyond Type 1 will continue driving awareness of short-term solutions related to insulin access and affordability while fighting for systemic change.”

The organization “is also advocating for systemic payment policies that will make devices less expensive and avoid the same pitfalls (and rising prices) as the drug pricing system in the U.S.”

Mr. Jonas himself appears aware of the concerns.

Is 2021’s most expensive Super Bowl ad justified?

Meanwhile, in a piece in Esquire, Dave Holmes, who has type 1 diabetes, weighs up the pros and cons of the ad.

He writes: “While Jonas makes it look fun and easy to use a Dexcom G6 – a program to just get with like you would a drone or LED eyelashes – the process of acquiring one is complicated and often very expensive, even for people with good insurance. Which makes the year’s most expensive ad buy, for a product that only a small percentage of the U.S. population needs, confusing to me and others.”

Mr. Holmes also spoke with Craig Stubing, founder of the Beta Cell Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to educate and empower those with type 1 diabetes.

“Spending all this money on an ad, when people’s lives are at stake. I don’t know if offensive is the right word, but it seems out of touch with the reality that their patients are facing,” Mr. Stubing told Mr. Holmes.

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

The phase 3a STEP 1 trial that investigated the use of semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, for weight loss is aptly named, some say.

“In sum, we have a long way to go to control the obesity epidemic ... but on the face of it, the STEP 1 trial (like its name) is a good beginning,” wrote coeditorialists Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine, also in Boston.

The trial findings by John P.H. Wilding, DM, University of Liverpool (England), and colleagues and an accompanying editorial were published online Feb. 10, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The results are encouraging, with significantly more patients in the semaglutide group having clinically important weight loss,” Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen stressed.

However, they also cautioned that “despite the positive results of this trial, the present study has some important limitations” and “there are concerns, including adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal – nausea, sometimes vomiting, and diarrhea) related primarily to the class of the agent.”

Two U.K. experts drew similar takeaways, speaking to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“This was a well-designed study with unequivocal findings,” which showed that semaglutide “is indeed likely to be a game-changer in the fight against obesity,” according to Baptiste Leurent, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

However, if the drug is approved at this dose for this use, patients would need close monitoring for gastrointestinal disorders, and “we also need to better understand what is happening once the treatment is stopped, and whether it could be taken for a shorter period of time.”

Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, MD, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge (England), pointed out that “GLP-1 is made by cells in the intestine and levels increase in the blood after a meal, providing some of the signal to the brain that tells us we are ‘full,’ ” so GLP-1 agonists have been studied as appetite suppressants, in addition to their approved use to treat type 2 diabetes.

Only about 4.5% of participants in STEP 1 stopped taking semaglutide because of gastrointestinal issues, he noted, although more participants in that group reported problems with gallstones, which can follow rapid weight loss.

And “unlike some previous appetite suppressant drugs which caused significant psychological and psychiatric side effects, there is no evidence that semaglutide has any adverse effects of that nature,” Dr. O’Rahilly noted.

In sum, he said, “this is the start of a new era for obesity drug development with the future direction being to achieve levels of weight loss comparable to semaglutide, while having fewer side effects.”
 

‘Pressing need’ to address obesity; semaglutide filed for obesity

There is a “pressing need” to address the worldwide increase in obesity and weight-related coexisting conditions, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted.

Sustained long-term weight loss with diet and exercise is challenging; behavioral weight-loss strategies “fail more often than not,” bariatric surgery is invasive and often followed by eventual weight regain, they wrote.

In addition, said Dr. Wilding and colleagues, the “use of available [weight-loss] medications remains limited by modest efficacy, safety concerns, and cost.”

Subcutaneous semaglutide, approved for treating type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic) in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week, induced weight loss at higher doses. The current study is part of the global Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity program of four trials (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) that aimed to test the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for weight loss.

Topline results from STEP 1 were presented June 4, 2020.

And as reported earlier, results from STEP 3 – a 68-week trial of semaglutide versus placebo in 611 participants who all received very intensive diet and exercise counseling – were presented at the virtual ObesityWeek 2020 meeting.

The four trials of semaglutide for weight loss have been completed and the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 4, 2020 (with a decision expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
 

Most patients had 5% weight loss with semaglutide

The STEP 1 trial enrolled 1,961 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m² or at least 27 with at least one weight-related coexisting condition, but without type 2 diabetes, at 129 sites in 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Participants were a mean age of 47 and three-quarters were women. Most participants were White (76%), followed by Asian (13%), Black or African American (6%), or other (5%).

On average, they had a BMI of 38 and weighed 105 kg. Three-quarters had one or more coexisting conditions.

Participants were randomized to receive semaglutide (1,306 patients) or placebo (655 patients), added to lifestyle intervention.

Everyone received 17 monthly individual counseling sessions during which they learned about adhering to a diet with a 500-calorie/day deficit, were encouraged to build up to walking 150 minutes each week, and recorded their daily diet and exercise (in a diary or using an app).

Semaglutide was administered with a prefilled pen injector at a dose of 0.25 mg/week for the first 4 weeks, escalated to 2.4 mg/week by week 16 (or lower if the patient had unacceptable side effects).

At 68 weeks, participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group had greater mean weight loss (14.9% vs. 2.4%, or 15.3 kg vs. 2.6 kg).

Participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group were much more likely to have lost at least 5% of their initial weight (86% vs. 31.5%) or at least 10% of their initial weight (69.1% vs. 12.0%), or at least 15% of their initial weight (50.5% vs. 4.9%; P < .001 for all three comparisons).

About 80% of participants adhered to the study treatment. A third of participants in the semaglutide group who completed the study lost at least 20% of their initial weight, which approaches the 20%-30% reported weight loss 1-3 years after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Participants in the semaglutide group also had greater improvements in waist circumference and levels of hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), and fasting lipids, as well as in physical function scores on SF-36 and IWQOL-Lite-CT questionnaires.

In their editorial, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted that “daily oral semaglutide [already approved in 7-mg and 14-mg doses for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as Rybelsus] might be more appealing to many people,” as a weight-loss medication than a once-weekly subcutaneous dose. Semaglutide is the first GLP-1 agonist available as an oral agent.

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial (with expected completion in 2023) will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years.
 

GI disorders and ‘important limitations’

More participants in the semaglutide than the placebo group reported gastrointestinal disorders (typically nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation; 74.2% vs. 47.9%), which were mostly transient and mild to moderate in severity, but also led to more treatment discontinuation (7.0% vs. 3.1%).

More patients in the semaglutide versus placebo group had a gall bladder–related disorder (2.6% vs. 1.2%, mostly cholelithiasis) and mild acute pancreatitis (3 vs. 0 participants), but there were no between-group differences in neoplasms.

Dr. Wilding and colleagues acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the fact that it enrolled mainly women, mainly non-White participants, was relatively short, and excluded patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mean placebo-corrected weight loss with 2.4 mg/weekly subcutaneous semaglutide was greater than with 3.0 mg once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – the only GLP-1 agonist approved for weight management – in the 56-week SCALE trial (12.4% vs. 4.5%); however, the two studies had different populations.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor and Dr. Rosen is an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Ingelfinger, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Leurent have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Rahilly has a current research collaboration with Novo Nordisk scientists in an unrelated area and has been a consultant for the company.

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

The phase 3a STEP 1 trial that investigated the use of semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, for weight loss is aptly named, some say.

“In sum, we have a long way to go to control the obesity epidemic ... but on the face of it, the STEP 1 trial (like its name) is a good beginning,” wrote coeditorialists Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine, also in Boston.

The trial findings by John P.H. Wilding, DM, University of Liverpool (England), and colleagues and an accompanying editorial were published online Feb. 10, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The results are encouraging, with significantly more patients in the semaglutide group having clinically important weight loss,” Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen stressed.

However, they also cautioned that “despite the positive results of this trial, the present study has some important limitations” and “there are concerns, including adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal – nausea, sometimes vomiting, and diarrhea) related primarily to the class of the agent.”

Two U.K. experts drew similar takeaways, speaking to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“This was a well-designed study with unequivocal findings,” which showed that semaglutide “is indeed likely to be a game-changer in the fight against obesity,” according to Baptiste Leurent, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

However, if the drug is approved at this dose for this use, patients would need close monitoring for gastrointestinal disorders, and “we also need to better understand what is happening once the treatment is stopped, and whether it could be taken for a shorter period of time.”

Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, MD, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge (England), pointed out that “GLP-1 is made by cells in the intestine and levels increase in the blood after a meal, providing some of the signal to the brain that tells us we are ‘full,’ ” so GLP-1 agonists have been studied as appetite suppressants, in addition to their approved use to treat type 2 diabetes.

Only about 4.5% of participants in STEP 1 stopped taking semaglutide because of gastrointestinal issues, he noted, although more participants in that group reported problems with gallstones, which can follow rapid weight loss.

And “unlike some previous appetite suppressant drugs which caused significant psychological and psychiatric side effects, there is no evidence that semaglutide has any adverse effects of that nature,” Dr. O’Rahilly noted.

In sum, he said, “this is the start of a new era for obesity drug development with the future direction being to achieve levels of weight loss comparable to semaglutide, while having fewer side effects.”
 

‘Pressing need’ to address obesity; semaglutide filed for obesity

There is a “pressing need” to address the worldwide increase in obesity and weight-related coexisting conditions, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted.

Sustained long-term weight loss with diet and exercise is challenging; behavioral weight-loss strategies “fail more often than not,” bariatric surgery is invasive and often followed by eventual weight regain, they wrote.

In addition, said Dr. Wilding and colleagues, the “use of available [weight-loss] medications remains limited by modest efficacy, safety concerns, and cost.”

Subcutaneous semaglutide, approved for treating type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic) in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week, induced weight loss at higher doses. The current study is part of the global Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity program of four trials (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) that aimed to test the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for weight loss.

Topline results from STEP 1 were presented June 4, 2020.

And as reported earlier, results from STEP 3 – a 68-week trial of semaglutide versus placebo in 611 participants who all received very intensive diet and exercise counseling – were presented at the virtual ObesityWeek 2020 meeting.

The four trials of semaglutide for weight loss have been completed and the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 4, 2020 (with a decision expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
 

Most patients had 5% weight loss with semaglutide

The STEP 1 trial enrolled 1,961 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m² or at least 27 with at least one weight-related coexisting condition, but without type 2 diabetes, at 129 sites in 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Participants were a mean age of 47 and three-quarters were women. Most participants were White (76%), followed by Asian (13%), Black or African American (6%), or other (5%).

On average, they had a BMI of 38 and weighed 105 kg. Three-quarters had one or more coexisting conditions.

Participants were randomized to receive semaglutide (1,306 patients) or placebo (655 patients), added to lifestyle intervention.

Everyone received 17 monthly individual counseling sessions during which they learned about adhering to a diet with a 500-calorie/day deficit, were encouraged to build up to walking 150 minutes each week, and recorded their daily diet and exercise (in a diary or using an app).

Semaglutide was administered with a prefilled pen injector at a dose of 0.25 mg/week for the first 4 weeks, escalated to 2.4 mg/week by week 16 (or lower if the patient had unacceptable side effects).

At 68 weeks, participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group had greater mean weight loss (14.9% vs. 2.4%, or 15.3 kg vs. 2.6 kg).

Participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group were much more likely to have lost at least 5% of their initial weight (86% vs. 31.5%) or at least 10% of their initial weight (69.1% vs. 12.0%), or at least 15% of their initial weight (50.5% vs. 4.9%; P < .001 for all three comparisons).

About 80% of participants adhered to the study treatment. A third of participants in the semaglutide group who completed the study lost at least 20% of their initial weight, which approaches the 20%-30% reported weight loss 1-3 years after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Participants in the semaglutide group also had greater improvements in waist circumference and levels of hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), and fasting lipids, as well as in physical function scores on SF-36 and IWQOL-Lite-CT questionnaires.

In their editorial, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted that “daily oral semaglutide [already approved in 7-mg and 14-mg doses for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as Rybelsus] might be more appealing to many people,” as a weight-loss medication than a once-weekly subcutaneous dose. Semaglutide is the first GLP-1 agonist available as an oral agent.

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial (with expected completion in 2023) will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years.
 

GI disorders and ‘important limitations’

More participants in the semaglutide than the placebo group reported gastrointestinal disorders (typically nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation; 74.2% vs. 47.9%), which were mostly transient and mild to moderate in severity, but also led to more treatment discontinuation (7.0% vs. 3.1%).

More patients in the semaglutide versus placebo group had a gall bladder–related disorder (2.6% vs. 1.2%, mostly cholelithiasis) and mild acute pancreatitis (3 vs. 0 participants), but there were no between-group differences in neoplasms.

Dr. Wilding and colleagues acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the fact that it enrolled mainly women, mainly non-White participants, was relatively short, and excluded patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mean placebo-corrected weight loss with 2.4 mg/weekly subcutaneous semaglutide was greater than with 3.0 mg once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – the only GLP-1 agonist approved for weight management – in the 56-week SCALE trial (12.4% vs. 4.5%); however, the two studies had different populations.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor and Dr. Rosen is an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Ingelfinger, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Leurent have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Rahilly has a current research collaboration with Novo Nordisk scientists in an unrelated area and has been a consultant for the company.

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

The phase 3a STEP 1 trial that investigated the use of semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, for weight loss is aptly named, some say.

“In sum, we have a long way to go to control the obesity epidemic ... but on the face of it, the STEP 1 trial (like its name) is a good beginning,” wrote coeditorialists Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine, also in Boston.

The trial findings by John P.H. Wilding, DM, University of Liverpool (England), and colleagues and an accompanying editorial were published online Feb. 10, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The results are encouraging, with significantly more patients in the semaglutide group having clinically important weight loss,” Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen stressed.

However, they also cautioned that “despite the positive results of this trial, the present study has some important limitations” and “there are concerns, including adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal – nausea, sometimes vomiting, and diarrhea) related primarily to the class of the agent.”

Two U.K. experts drew similar takeaways, speaking to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“This was a well-designed study with unequivocal findings,” which showed that semaglutide “is indeed likely to be a game-changer in the fight against obesity,” according to Baptiste Leurent, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

However, if the drug is approved at this dose for this use, patients would need close monitoring for gastrointestinal disorders, and “we also need to better understand what is happening once the treatment is stopped, and whether it could be taken for a shorter period of time.”

Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, MD, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge (England), pointed out that “GLP-1 is made by cells in the intestine and levels increase in the blood after a meal, providing some of the signal to the brain that tells us we are ‘full,’ ” so GLP-1 agonists have been studied as appetite suppressants, in addition to their approved use to treat type 2 diabetes.

Only about 4.5% of participants in STEP 1 stopped taking semaglutide because of gastrointestinal issues, he noted, although more participants in that group reported problems with gallstones, which can follow rapid weight loss.

And “unlike some previous appetite suppressant drugs which caused significant psychological and psychiatric side effects, there is no evidence that semaglutide has any adverse effects of that nature,” Dr. O’Rahilly noted.

In sum, he said, “this is the start of a new era for obesity drug development with the future direction being to achieve levels of weight loss comparable to semaglutide, while having fewer side effects.”
 

‘Pressing need’ to address obesity; semaglutide filed for obesity

There is a “pressing need” to address the worldwide increase in obesity and weight-related coexisting conditions, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted.

Sustained long-term weight loss with diet and exercise is challenging; behavioral weight-loss strategies “fail more often than not,” bariatric surgery is invasive and often followed by eventual weight regain, they wrote.

In addition, said Dr. Wilding and colleagues, the “use of available [weight-loss] medications remains limited by modest efficacy, safety concerns, and cost.”

Subcutaneous semaglutide, approved for treating type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic) in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week, induced weight loss at higher doses. The current study is part of the global Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity program of four trials (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) that aimed to test the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for weight loss.

Topline results from STEP 1 were presented June 4, 2020.

And as reported earlier, results from STEP 3 – a 68-week trial of semaglutide versus placebo in 611 participants who all received very intensive diet and exercise counseling – were presented at the virtual ObesityWeek 2020 meeting.

The four trials of semaglutide for weight loss have been completed and the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 4, 2020 (with a decision expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
 

Most patients had 5% weight loss with semaglutide

The STEP 1 trial enrolled 1,961 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m² or at least 27 with at least one weight-related coexisting condition, but without type 2 diabetes, at 129 sites in 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Participants were a mean age of 47 and three-quarters were women. Most participants were White (76%), followed by Asian (13%), Black or African American (6%), or other (5%).

On average, they had a BMI of 38 and weighed 105 kg. Three-quarters had one or more coexisting conditions.

Participants were randomized to receive semaglutide (1,306 patients) or placebo (655 patients), added to lifestyle intervention.

Everyone received 17 monthly individual counseling sessions during which they learned about adhering to a diet with a 500-calorie/day deficit, were encouraged to build up to walking 150 minutes each week, and recorded their daily diet and exercise (in a diary or using an app).

Semaglutide was administered with a prefilled pen injector at a dose of 0.25 mg/week for the first 4 weeks, escalated to 2.4 mg/week by week 16 (or lower if the patient had unacceptable side effects).

At 68 weeks, participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group had greater mean weight loss (14.9% vs. 2.4%, or 15.3 kg vs. 2.6 kg).

Participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group were much more likely to have lost at least 5% of their initial weight (86% vs. 31.5%) or at least 10% of their initial weight (69.1% vs. 12.0%), or at least 15% of their initial weight (50.5% vs. 4.9%; P < .001 for all three comparisons).

About 80% of participants adhered to the study treatment. A third of participants in the semaglutide group who completed the study lost at least 20% of their initial weight, which approaches the 20%-30% reported weight loss 1-3 years after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Participants in the semaglutide group also had greater improvements in waist circumference and levels of hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), and fasting lipids, as well as in physical function scores on SF-36 and IWQOL-Lite-CT questionnaires.

In their editorial, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted that “daily oral semaglutide [already approved in 7-mg and 14-mg doses for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as Rybelsus] might be more appealing to many people,” as a weight-loss medication than a once-weekly subcutaneous dose. Semaglutide is the first GLP-1 agonist available as an oral agent.

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial (with expected completion in 2023) will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years.
 

GI disorders and ‘important limitations’

More participants in the semaglutide than the placebo group reported gastrointestinal disorders (typically nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation; 74.2% vs. 47.9%), which were mostly transient and mild to moderate in severity, but also led to more treatment discontinuation (7.0% vs. 3.1%).

More patients in the semaglutide versus placebo group had a gall bladder–related disorder (2.6% vs. 1.2%, mostly cholelithiasis) and mild acute pancreatitis (3 vs. 0 participants), but there were no between-group differences in neoplasms.

Dr. Wilding and colleagues acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the fact that it enrolled mainly women, mainly non-White participants, was relatively short, and excluded patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mean placebo-corrected weight loss with 2.4 mg/weekly subcutaneous semaglutide was greater than with 3.0 mg once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – the only GLP-1 agonist approved for weight management – in the 56-week SCALE trial (12.4% vs. 4.5%); however, the two studies had different populations.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor and Dr. Rosen is an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Ingelfinger, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Leurent have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Rahilly has a current research collaboration with Novo Nordisk scientists in an unrelated area and has been a consultant for the company.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the fully human monoclonal antibody evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) for use on top of other cholesterol-modifying medication in patients aged 12 years and older with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), the agency and Regeneron have announced.

Evinacumab had received orphan drug designation and underwent priority regulatory review based primarily on the phase 3 ELIPSE trial, presented at a meeting in March 2020 and published in August 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004215).

In the trial with 65 patients with HoFH on guideline-based lipid-modifying therapy, those who also received evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks showed a nearly 50% drop in LDL cholesterol levels after 24 weeks, compared with patients given a placebo. Only 2% of patients in both groups discontinued therapy because of adverse reactions.

The drug blocks angiopoietin-like 3, itself an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase. It therefore lowers LDL cholesterol levels by mechanisms that don’t directly involve the LDL receptor.

Regeneron estimates that about 1300 people in the United States have the homozygous genetic disorder, which can lead to LDL cholesterol levels of a 1,000 mg/dL or higher, advanced premature atherosclerosis, and extreme risk for cardiovascular events.

The drug’s average wholesale acquisition cost per patient in the United States is expected to be about $450,000 per year, the company said, adding that it has a financial support program to help qualified patients with out-of-pocket costs.

Regeneron’s announcement included a comment from dyslipidemia-therapy expert Daniel J. Rader, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who called evinacumab “a potentially transformational new treatment for people with HoFH.”

The drug is currently under regulatory review for the same indication in Europe, the company said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the fully human monoclonal antibody evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) for use on top of other cholesterol-modifying medication in patients aged 12 years and older with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), the agency and Regeneron have announced.

Evinacumab had received orphan drug designation and underwent priority regulatory review based primarily on the phase 3 ELIPSE trial, presented at a meeting in March 2020 and published in August 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004215).

In the trial with 65 patients with HoFH on guideline-based lipid-modifying therapy, those who also received evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks showed a nearly 50% drop in LDL cholesterol levels after 24 weeks, compared with patients given a placebo. Only 2% of patients in both groups discontinued therapy because of adverse reactions.

The drug blocks angiopoietin-like 3, itself an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase. It therefore lowers LDL cholesterol levels by mechanisms that don’t directly involve the LDL receptor.

Regeneron estimates that about 1300 people in the United States have the homozygous genetic disorder, which can lead to LDL cholesterol levels of a 1,000 mg/dL or higher, advanced premature atherosclerosis, and extreme risk for cardiovascular events.

The drug’s average wholesale acquisition cost per patient in the United States is expected to be about $450,000 per year, the company said, adding that it has a financial support program to help qualified patients with out-of-pocket costs.

Regeneron’s announcement included a comment from dyslipidemia-therapy expert Daniel J. Rader, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who called evinacumab “a potentially transformational new treatment for people with HoFH.”

The drug is currently under regulatory review for the same indication in Europe, the company said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the fully human monoclonal antibody evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) for use on top of other cholesterol-modifying medication in patients aged 12 years and older with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), the agency and Regeneron have announced.

Evinacumab had received orphan drug designation and underwent priority regulatory review based primarily on the phase 3 ELIPSE trial, presented at a meeting in March 2020 and published in August 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004215).

In the trial with 65 patients with HoFH on guideline-based lipid-modifying therapy, those who also received evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks showed a nearly 50% drop in LDL cholesterol levels after 24 weeks, compared with patients given a placebo. Only 2% of patients in both groups discontinued therapy because of adverse reactions.

The drug blocks angiopoietin-like 3, itself an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase. It therefore lowers LDL cholesterol levels by mechanisms that don’t directly involve the LDL receptor.

Regeneron estimates that about 1300 people in the United States have the homozygous genetic disorder, which can lead to LDL cholesterol levels of a 1,000 mg/dL or higher, advanced premature atherosclerosis, and extreme risk for cardiovascular events.

The drug’s average wholesale acquisition cost per patient in the United States is expected to be about $450,000 per year, the company said, adding that it has a financial support program to help qualified patients with out-of-pocket costs.

Regeneron’s announcement included a comment from dyslipidemia-therapy expert Daniel J. Rader, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who called evinacumab “a potentially transformational new treatment for people with HoFH.”

The drug is currently under regulatory review for the same indication in Europe, the company said.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Menopause is a key time to monitor women for the development or increase of cardiovascular risk factors, according to a new consensus statement developed by the Task Force on Gender of the European Society of Cardiology and a multidisciplinary ESC working group on Women’s Health in Menopause.

“After menopause, traditional cardiovascular risk factors are adversely affected – particularly hypertension,” wrote Angela H.E.M. Maas, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Since the first ESC consensus paper on the management of cardiovascular risk in perimenopausal women was published in 2007, we have a greater understanding on the role of female-specific risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD),” they said.

In a consensus statement published in the European Heart Journal, the authors presented clinical guidance for diagnosis and management of cardiovascular risk factors during the menopause transition. The transition to menopause increases a woman’s risk for developing several CVD risk factors, including central adiposity, increased insulin resistance, a proatherogenic lipid profile, and autonomic dysfunction that can contribute to increased heart rate variability, according to the statement.

Estrogen changes may affect ischemic disease

In general, obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) strikes women later than men, but coronary vasomotor conditions are a common cause of ischemic heart disease in women with or without CAD, the authors noted.

“Lower estrogen levels after menopause are related to altered vascular function, enhanced inflammation, and up-regulation of other hormonal systems such as the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, and reduced nitric oxide–dependent vasodilation,” they wrote. They recommended use of the coronary artery calcium score for screening middle-aged women who are symptomatic or at intermediate cardiovascular risk.

The transition to menopause causes changes in lipid profiles, and a rise in blood pressure in particular “may be both a direct effect of hormonal changes on the vasculature and metabolic changes with aging,” but hypertension in early post menopause is “often poorly managed,” the authors noted.

Compared with asymptomatic women, women who suffer from severe menopausal symptoms often have increased cardiovascular disease risk factors. For example, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study showed a 48% increased risk of incident diabetes at follow-up in women with severe symptoms of hot flashes and night sweats, the authors wrote. Clinicians should also be aware of the increased immune reactivity that occurs during and after menopause and the increased CVD risk associated with autoimmune and endocrine disorders, they said.
 

Multiple strategies to reduce risk

Strategies to address the cardiovascular risk in menopause include assessing glucose, lipid levels, and blood pressure during the transition to menopause, according to the statement.

In addition, they recommended increasing employer awareness of menopause, as changes may interfere with working ability. A healthy lifestyle including healthy diet and regular exercise can help reduce cardiovascular risks and relieve symptoms. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) may be indicated to relieve symptoms, including symptoms of depression, and provide cardioprotection for younger women around the time of menopause, according to the statement.

However, “MHT is not recommended in women at high CV risk and after a previous CVD event,” and all women should be assessed for cardiovascular risk factors before starting MHT, they emphasized.
 

Results raise awareness of cardiovascular health and menopause link

“Over the past 20 years, our knowledge of how menopause might contribute to cardiovascular disease has dramatically evolved,” said Samar El Khoudary, MD, of the University of Pittsburg, in an interview.

“We have accumulated data that consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in cardiovascular health. As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” she said. “The goal is to raise awareness for both health care providers and women of the significant adverse cardiovascular health changes accompanying the menopause transition and to point out the importance of adopting prevention strategies early during this stage,” she explained.

The impact of the hormonal changes of menopause on CVD risk “is very complex,” Dr. El Khoudary said. “Until now, we could not prove that using estrogen therapy is cardioprotective,” she emphasized. “Studies point to the need to consider the timing of hormone use, as well as types and route of administration,” she noted. “The truth is that, although the menopause transition is associated with an acceleration in CVD risk, the exact mechanism still is not completely clear. Hormone changes contribute, but they are not the ultimate contributor,” she added.

 

Research gaps include data on lifestyle and behavioral interventions

“Irrespective of the accumulating findings showing adverse changes in multiple cardiovascular health parameters, as women transition through menopause, we do not have data documenting current status of ideal cardiovascular health components during the menopause transition among women,” said Dr. El Khoudary. “The limited data we have [suggest] that a very small proportion of women transitioning through menopause eat a healthy diet (less than 20%) or practice physical activity (about7.2%) at a level that matches the current recommendations,” she noted.

“Lifestyle and behavioral interventions are critical to maintain a healthy heart and reduce heart disease; we do not have adequate randomized clinical trials testing these interventions specifically during the menopause transition,” she said.

“Similarly, we are in need of randomized clinical trials of therapeutic interventions such as lipid-lowering medications and menopause hormone therapy in women transitioning through menopause,” said Dr. El Khoudary. “This high-risk population has not been the focus of previous clinical trials, leaving us with questions of how the results from these studies might apply to women during the menopause transition,” she said.
 

Consensus invites collaboration

“I commend the group for putting together a statement that crosses practice and specialty boundaries,” said Lubna Pal, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., in an interview. Although the statement does not present novel information, it “has the power of unifying the various providers by bringing focus on the individual elements spanning a woman’s life that cumulatively determine her lifetime health risk,” she said. Preeclampsia may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease later in life, and events in reproductive age may determine a woman’s trajectory during the transition to menopause and beyond, Dr. Pal noted.

“The consensus statement will likely be read by internists and family medicine providers as well as ob.gyns.; it encourages all those involved in caring for female patients to take on the responsibility of ‘passing on the baton,’ such that all women who are deemed at an enhanced risk for cardiovascular disease are assured due diligence in care through stringent surveillance and timely interventions,” said Dr. Pal. “It is a call for the various providers who care for women at distinct stages of life to work together toward a shared goal of optimizing every woman’s health across her lifespan,” she said.

“More research is needed for us to better understand the mechanisms at play” in the development of cardiovascular risk and in understanding the continuity of changes across women’s lifespans, Dr. Pal said. “We have associations, but not much information about causation,” she emphasized. However, the statement promotes the dissemination of information about women’s health and sensitizes providers to the potential and the power of preventive care. “We should be much more liberal and loud in holding conversations about risk quantification and risk reduction, and this statement is a resounding effort toward identifying and mitigating long-term cardiovascular risk, even if only through promoting a healthier lifestyle in those deemed at risk,” she added.  

The statement received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Maas had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. El Khoudary had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Menopause is a key time to monitor women for the development or increase of cardiovascular risk factors, according to a new consensus statement developed by the Task Force on Gender of the European Society of Cardiology and a multidisciplinary ESC working group on Women’s Health in Menopause.

“After menopause, traditional cardiovascular risk factors are adversely affected – particularly hypertension,” wrote Angela H.E.M. Maas, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Since the first ESC consensus paper on the management of cardiovascular risk in perimenopausal women was published in 2007, we have a greater understanding on the role of female-specific risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD),” they said.

In a consensus statement published in the European Heart Journal, the authors presented clinical guidance for diagnosis and management of cardiovascular risk factors during the menopause transition. The transition to menopause increases a woman’s risk for developing several CVD risk factors, including central adiposity, increased insulin resistance, a proatherogenic lipid profile, and autonomic dysfunction that can contribute to increased heart rate variability, according to the statement.

Estrogen changes may affect ischemic disease

In general, obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) strikes women later than men, but coronary vasomotor conditions are a common cause of ischemic heart disease in women with or without CAD, the authors noted.

“Lower estrogen levels after menopause are related to altered vascular function, enhanced inflammation, and up-regulation of other hormonal systems such as the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, and reduced nitric oxide–dependent vasodilation,” they wrote. They recommended use of the coronary artery calcium score for screening middle-aged women who are symptomatic or at intermediate cardiovascular risk.

The transition to menopause causes changes in lipid profiles, and a rise in blood pressure in particular “may be both a direct effect of hormonal changes on the vasculature and metabolic changes with aging,” but hypertension in early post menopause is “often poorly managed,” the authors noted.

Compared with asymptomatic women, women who suffer from severe menopausal symptoms often have increased cardiovascular disease risk factors. For example, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study showed a 48% increased risk of incident diabetes at follow-up in women with severe symptoms of hot flashes and night sweats, the authors wrote. Clinicians should also be aware of the increased immune reactivity that occurs during and after menopause and the increased CVD risk associated with autoimmune and endocrine disorders, they said.
 

Multiple strategies to reduce risk

Strategies to address the cardiovascular risk in menopause include assessing glucose, lipid levels, and blood pressure during the transition to menopause, according to the statement.

In addition, they recommended increasing employer awareness of menopause, as changes may interfere with working ability. A healthy lifestyle including healthy diet and regular exercise can help reduce cardiovascular risks and relieve symptoms. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) may be indicated to relieve symptoms, including symptoms of depression, and provide cardioprotection for younger women around the time of menopause, according to the statement.

However, “MHT is not recommended in women at high CV risk and after a previous CVD event,” and all women should be assessed for cardiovascular risk factors before starting MHT, they emphasized.
 

Results raise awareness of cardiovascular health and menopause link

“Over the past 20 years, our knowledge of how menopause might contribute to cardiovascular disease has dramatically evolved,” said Samar El Khoudary, MD, of the University of Pittsburg, in an interview.

“We have accumulated data that consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in cardiovascular health. As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” she said. “The goal is to raise awareness for both health care providers and women of the significant adverse cardiovascular health changes accompanying the menopause transition and to point out the importance of adopting prevention strategies early during this stage,” she explained.

The impact of the hormonal changes of menopause on CVD risk “is very complex,” Dr. El Khoudary said. “Until now, we could not prove that using estrogen therapy is cardioprotective,” she emphasized. “Studies point to the need to consider the timing of hormone use, as well as types and route of administration,” she noted. “The truth is that, although the menopause transition is associated with an acceleration in CVD risk, the exact mechanism still is not completely clear. Hormone changes contribute, but they are not the ultimate contributor,” she added.

 

Research gaps include data on lifestyle and behavioral interventions

“Irrespective of the accumulating findings showing adverse changes in multiple cardiovascular health parameters, as women transition through menopause, we do not have data documenting current status of ideal cardiovascular health components during the menopause transition among women,” said Dr. El Khoudary. “The limited data we have [suggest] that a very small proportion of women transitioning through menopause eat a healthy diet (less than 20%) or practice physical activity (about7.2%) at a level that matches the current recommendations,” she noted.

“Lifestyle and behavioral interventions are critical to maintain a healthy heart and reduce heart disease; we do not have adequate randomized clinical trials testing these interventions specifically during the menopause transition,” she said.

“Similarly, we are in need of randomized clinical trials of therapeutic interventions such as lipid-lowering medications and menopause hormone therapy in women transitioning through menopause,” said Dr. El Khoudary. “This high-risk population has not been the focus of previous clinical trials, leaving us with questions of how the results from these studies might apply to women during the menopause transition,” she said.
 

Consensus invites collaboration

“I commend the group for putting together a statement that crosses practice and specialty boundaries,” said Lubna Pal, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., in an interview. Although the statement does not present novel information, it “has the power of unifying the various providers by bringing focus on the individual elements spanning a woman’s life that cumulatively determine her lifetime health risk,” she said. Preeclampsia may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease later in life, and events in reproductive age may determine a woman’s trajectory during the transition to menopause and beyond, Dr. Pal noted.

“The consensus statement will likely be read by internists and family medicine providers as well as ob.gyns.; it encourages all those involved in caring for female patients to take on the responsibility of ‘passing on the baton,’ such that all women who are deemed at an enhanced risk for cardiovascular disease are assured due diligence in care through stringent surveillance and timely interventions,” said Dr. Pal. “It is a call for the various providers who care for women at distinct stages of life to work together toward a shared goal of optimizing every woman’s health across her lifespan,” she said.

“More research is needed for us to better understand the mechanisms at play” in the development of cardiovascular risk and in understanding the continuity of changes across women’s lifespans, Dr. Pal said. “We have associations, but not much information about causation,” she emphasized. However, the statement promotes the dissemination of information about women’s health and sensitizes providers to the potential and the power of preventive care. “We should be much more liberal and loud in holding conversations about risk quantification and risk reduction, and this statement is a resounding effort toward identifying and mitigating long-term cardiovascular risk, even if only through promoting a healthier lifestyle in those deemed at risk,” she added.  

The statement received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Maas had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. El Khoudary had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Menopause is a key time to monitor women for the development or increase of cardiovascular risk factors, according to a new consensus statement developed by the Task Force on Gender of the European Society of Cardiology and a multidisciplinary ESC working group on Women’s Health in Menopause.

“After menopause, traditional cardiovascular risk factors are adversely affected – particularly hypertension,” wrote Angela H.E.M. Maas, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands, and colleagues.

“Since the first ESC consensus paper on the management of cardiovascular risk in perimenopausal women was published in 2007, we have a greater understanding on the role of female-specific risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD),” they said.

In a consensus statement published in the European Heart Journal, the authors presented clinical guidance for diagnosis and management of cardiovascular risk factors during the menopause transition. The transition to menopause increases a woman’s risk for developing several CVD risk factors, including central adiposity, increased insulin resistance, a proatherogenic lipid profile, and autonomic dysfunction that can contribute to increased heart rate variability, according to the statement.

Estrogen changes may affect ischemic disease

In general, obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) strikes women later than men, but coronary vasomotor conditions are a common cause of ischemic heart disease in women with or without CAD, the authors noted.

“Lower estrogen levels after menopause are related to altered vascular function, enhanced inflammation, and up-regulation of other hormonal systems such as the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, and reduced nitric oxide–dependent vasodilation,” they wrote. They recommended use of the coronary artery calcium score for screening middle-aged women who are symptomatic or at intermediate cardiovascular risk.

The transition to menopause causes changes in lipid profiles, and a rise in blood pressure in particular “may be both a direct effect of hormonal changes on the vasculature and metabolic changes with aging,” but hypertension in early post menopause is “often poorly managed,” the authors noted.

Compared with asymptomatic women, women who suffer from severe menopausal symptoms often have increased cardiovascular disease risk factors. For example, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study showed a 48% increased risk of incident diabetes at follow-up in women with severe symptoms of hot flashes and night sweats, the authors wrote. Clinicians should also be aware of the increased immune reactivity that occurs during and after menopause and the increased CVD risk associated with autoimmune and endocrine disorders, they said.
 

Multiple strategies to reduce risk

Strategies to address the cardiovascular risk in menopause include assessing glucose, lipid levels, and blood pressure during the transition to menopause, according to the statement.

In addition, they recommended increasing employer awareness of menopause, as changes may interfere with working ability. A healthy lifestyle including healthy diet and regular exercise can help reduce cardiovascular risks and relieve symptoms. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) may be indicated to relieve symptoms, including symptoms of depression, and provide cardioprotection for younger women around the time of menopause, according to the statement.

However, “MHT is not recommended in women at high CV risk and after a previous CVD event,” and all women should be assessed for cardiovascular risk factors before starting MHT, they emphasized.
 

Results raise awareness of cardiovascular health and menopause link

“Over the past 20 years, our knowledge of how menopause might contribute to cardiovascular disease has dramatically evolved,” said Samar El Khoudary, MD, of the University of Pittsburg, in an interview.

“We have accumulated data that consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in cardiovascular health. As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” she said. “The goal is to raise awareness for both health care providers and women of the significant adverse cardiovascular health changes accompanying the menopause transition and to point out the importance of adopting prevention strategies early during this stage,” she explained.

The impact of the hormonal changes of menopause on CVD risk “is very complex,” Dr. El Khoudary said. “Until now, we could not prove that using estrogen therapy is cardioprotective,” she emphasized. “Studies point to the need to consider the timing of hormone use, as well as types and route of administration,” she noted. “The truth is that, although the menopause transition is associated with an acceleration in CVD risk, the exact mechanism still is not completely clear. Hormone changes contribute, but they are not the ultimate contributor,” she added.

 

Research gaps include data on lifestyle and behavioral interventions

“Irrespective of the accumulating findings showing adverse changes in multiple cardiovascular health parameters, as women transition through menopause, we do not have data documenting current status of ideal cardiovascular health components during the menopause transition among women,” said Dr. El Khoudary. “The limited data we have [suggest] that a very small proportion of women transitioning through menopause eat a healthy diet (less than 20%) or practice physical activity (about7.2%) at a level that matches the current recommendations,” she noted.

“Lifestyle and behavioral interventions are critical to maintain a healthy heart and reduce heart disease; we do not have adequate randomized clinical trials testing these interventions specifically during the menopause transition,” she said.

“Similarly, we are in need of randomized clinical trials of therapeutic interventions such as lipid-lowering medications and menopause hormone therapy in women transitioning through menopause,” said Dr. El Khoudary. “This high-risk population has not been the focus of previous clinical trials, leaving us with questions of how the results from these studies might apply to women during the menopause transition,” she said.
 

Consensus invites collaboration

“I commend the group for putting together a statement that crosses practice and specialty boundaries,” said Lubna Pal, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., in an interview. Although the statement does not present novel information, it “has the power of unifying the various providers by bringing focus on the individual elements spanning a woman’s life that cumulatively determine her lifetime health risk,” she said. Preeclampsia may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease later in life, and events in reproductive age may determine a woman’s trajectory during the transition to menopause and beyond, Dr. Pal noted.

“The consensus statement will likely be read by internists and family medicine providers as well as ob.gyns.; it encourages all those involved in caring for female patients to take on the responsibility of ‘passing on the baton,’ such that all women who are deemed at an enhanced risk for cardiovascular disease are assured due diligence in care through stringent surveillance and timely interventions,” said Dr. Pal. “It is a call for the various providers who care for women at distinct stages of life to work together toward a shared goal of optimizing every woman’s health across her lifespan,” she said.

“More research is needed for us to better understand the mechanisms at play” in the development of cardiovascular risk and in understanding the continuity of changes across women’s lifespans, Dr. Pal said. “We have associations, but not much information about causation,” she emphasized. However, the statement promotes the dissemination of information about women’s health and sensitizes providers to the potential and the power of preventive care. “We should be much more liberal and loud in holding conversations about risk quantification and risk reduction, and this statement is a resounding effort toward identifying and mitigating long-term cardiovascular risk, even if only through promoting a healthier lifestyle in those deemed at risk,” she added.  

The statement received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Maas had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. El Khoudary had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommended immunization schedule for adults for 2021.

A summary of the annual update was published online Feb. 11 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is available in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

It features a special section on vaccination during the pandemic as well as interim recommendations on administering the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors, led by Mark S. Freedman, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in Atlanta, note that this year’s recommendations for adults – persons aged 19 years and older – are largely the same as last year’s. “There have been very few changes,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. “Changes to the schedule tables and notes were made to harmonize to the greatest extent possible the adult and child/adolescent schedules.”

Changes in the schedule include new or updated ACIP recommendations for influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B (Hep B), and human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as for meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACYW) vaccines, meningococcal B (MenB) vaccines, and the zoster vaccine.

Vaccine-specific changes

Influenza

The schedule highlights updates to the composition of several influenza vaccines, which apply to components in both trivalent and quadrivalent formulations.

The cover page abbreviation for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was changed to LAIV4. The abbreviation for live recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) was changed to RIV4.

For individuals with a history of egg allergy who experience reactions other than hives, the following procedural warning has been added: “If using an influenza vaccine other than RIV4 or ccIIV4, administer in medical setting under supervision of health care provider who can recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.”

Zoster

The zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) has been removed from the schedule because it is no longer available in the United States. The recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix remains available as a 2-dose regimen for adults aged 50 years or older.

HPV

As in previous years, HPV vaccination is routinely recommended for persons aged 11-12 years, with catch-up vaccination for those aged 26 or younger. Catch-up vaccination can be considered with shared decision making for those aged 27 through 45. In this year’s schedule, in the pregnancy column, the color pink, which formerly indicated “delay until after pregnancy,” has been replaced with red and an asterisk, indicating “vaccinate after pregnancy.”

HepB

ACIP continues to recommend vaccination of adults at risk for HepB; however, the text overlay has been changed to read, “2, 3, or 4 doses, depending on vaccine or condition.” Additionally, HepB vaccination is now routinely recommended for adults younger than 60 years with diabetes. For those with diabetes who are older than 60, shared decision making is recommended.

Meningococcal vaccine

ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y. The MenQuadfi (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, which was first licensed in 2020, has been added to all relevant sections of MenACWY vaccines. For MenACWY booster doses, new text addresses special situations, including outbreaks.

Improvements have been made to text and layout, Dr. Freedman said. An example is the minimizing of specialized text. Other changes were made to ensure more consistent text structure and language. Various fine-tunings of color and positioning were made to the cover page and tables, and the wording of the notes sections was improved.

Vaccination in the pandemic

The updated schedule outlines guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization, with interim recommendations for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and older and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The authors stress the importance of receiving the recommended routine and catch-up immunizations notwithstanding widespread anxiety about visiting medical offices. Last spring, the CDC reported a dramatic drop in child vaccinations after the declaration of the national emergency in mid-March, a drop attributed to fear of COVID-19 exposure.

“ACIP continued to meet and make recommendations during the pandemic,” Dr. Freedman said. “Our recommendation remains that despite challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adults and their healthcare providers should follow the recommended vaccine schedule to protect against serious and sometimes deadly diseases.”

Regular vaccines can be safely administered even as COVID-19 retains its grasp on the United States. “Healthcare providers should follow the CDC’s interim guidance for the safe delivery of vaccines during the pandemic, which includes the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Freedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Henry Bernstein, DO, is the editor of the Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series, is a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member, and is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for a Takeda study on intrathecal enzymes for Hunter and San Filippo syndromes. Coauthor Kevin Ault, MD, has served on the data safety and monitoring committee for ACI Clinical.
 

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommended immunization schedule for adults for 2021.

A summary of the annual update was published online Feb. 11 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is available in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

It features a special section on vaccination during the pandemic as well as interim recommendations on administering the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors, led by Mark S. Freedman, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in Atlanta, note that this year’s recommendations for adults – persons aged 19 years and older – are largely the same as last year’s. “There have been very few changes,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. “Changes to the schedule tables and notes were made to harmonize to the greatest extent possible the adult and child/adolescent schedules.”

Changes in the schedule include new or updated ACIP recommendations for influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B (Hep B), and human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as for meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACYW) vaccines, meningococcal B (MenB) vaccines, and the zoster vaccine.

Vaccine-specific changes

Influenza

The schedule highlights updates to the composition of several influenza vaccines, which apply to components in both trivalent and quadrivalent formulations.

The cover page abbreviation for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was changed to LAIV4. The abbreviation for live recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) was changed to RIV4.

For individuals with a history of egg allergy who experience reactions other than hives, the following procedural warning has been added: “If using an influenza vaccine other than RIV4 or ccIIV4, administer in medical setting under supervision of health care provider who can recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.”

Zoster

The zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) has been removed from the schedule because it is no longer available in the United States. The recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix remains available as a 2-dose regimen for adults aged 50 years or older.

HPV

As in previous years, HPV vaccination is routinely recommended for persons aged 11-12 years, with catch-up vaccination for those aged 26 or younger. Catch-up vaccination can be considered with shared decision making for those aged 27 through 45. In this year’s schedule, in the pregnancy column, the color pink, which formerly indicated “delay until after pregnancy,” has been replaced with red and an asterisk, indicating “vaccinate after pregnancy.”

HepB

ACIP continues to recommend vaccination of adults at risk for HepB; however, the text overlay has been changed to read, “2, 3, or 4 doses, depending on vaccine or condition.” Additionally, HepB vaccination is now routinely recommended for adults younger than 60 years with diabetes. For those with diabetes who are older than 60, shared decision making is recommended.

Meningococcal vaccine

ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y. The MenQuadfi (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, which was first licensed in 2020, has been added to all relevant sections of MenACWY vaccines. For MenACWY booster doses, new text addresses special situations, including outbreaks.

Improvements have been made to text and layout, Dr. Freedman said. An example is the minimizing of specialized text. Other changes were made to ensure more consistent text structure and language. Various fine-tunings of color and positioning were made to the cover page and tables, and the wording of the notes sections was improved.

Vaccination in the pandemic

The updated schedule outlines guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization, with interim recommendations for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and older and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The authors stress the importance of receiving the recommended routine and catch-up immunizations notwithstanding widespread anxiety about visiting medical offices. Last spring, the CDC reported a dramatic drop in child vaccinations after the declaration of the national emergency in mid-March, a drop attributed to fear of COVID-19 exposure.

“ACIP continued to meet and make recommendations during the pandemic,” Dr. Freedman said. “Our recommendation remains that despite challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adults and their healthcare providers should follow the recommended vaccine schedule to protect against serious and sometimes deadly diseases.”

Regular vaccines can be safely administered even as COVID-19 retains its grasp on the United States. “Healthcare providers should follow the CDC’s interim guidance for the safe delivery of vaccines during the pandemic, which includes the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Freedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Henry Bernstein, DO, is the editor of the Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series, is a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member, and is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for a Takeda study on intrathecal enzymes for Hunter and San Filippo syndromes. Coauthor Kevin Ault, MD, has served on the data safety and monitoring committee for ACI Clinical.
 

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommended immunization schedule for adults for 2021.

A summary of the annual update was published online Feb. 11 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is available in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

It features a special section on vaccination during the pandemic as well as interim recommendations on administering the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors, led by Mark S. Freedman, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in Atlanta, note that this year’s recommendations for adults – persons aged 19 years and older – are largely the same as last year’s. “There have been very few changes,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. “Changes to the schedule tables and notes were made to harmonize to the greatest extent possible the adult and child/adolescent schedules.”

Changes in the schedule include new or updated ACIP recommendations for influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B (Hep B), and human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as for meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACYW) vaccines, meningococcal B (MenB) vaccines, and the zoster vaccine.

Vaccine-specific changes

Influenza

The schedule highlights updates to the composition of several influenza vaccines, which apply to components in both trivalent and quadrivalent formulations.

The cover page abbreviation for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was changed to LAIV4. The abbreviation for live recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) was changed to RIV4.

For individuals with a history of egg allergy who experience reactions other than hives, the following procedural warning has been added: “If using an influenza vaccine other than RIV4 or ccIIV4, administer in medical setting under supervision of health care provider who can recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.”

Zoster

The zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) has been removed from the schedule because it is no longer available in the United States. The recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix remains available as a 2-dose regimen for adults aged 50 years or older.

HPV

As in previous years, HPV vaccination is routinely recommended for persons aged 11-12 years, with catch-up vaccination for those aged 26 or younger. Catch-up vaccination can be considered with shared decision making for those aged 27 through 45. In this year’s schedule, in the pregnancy column, the color pink, which formerly indicated “delay until after pregnancy,” has been replaced with red and an asterisk, indicating “vaccinate after pregnancy.”

HepB

ACIP continues to recommend vaccination of adults at risk for HepB; however, the text overlay has been changed to read, “2, 3, or 4 doses, depending on vaccine or condition.” Additionally, HepB vaccination is now routinely recommended for adults younger than 60 years with diabetes. For those with diabetes who are older than 60, shared decision making is recommended.

Meningococcal vaccine

ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y. The MenQuadfi (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, which was first licensed in 2020, has been added to all relevant sections of MenACWY vaccines. For MenACWY booster doses, new text addresses special situations, including outbreaks.

Improvements have been made to text and layout, Dr. Freedman said. An example is the minimizing of specialized text. Other changes were made to ensure more consistent text structure and language. Various fine-tunings of color and positioning were made to the cover page and tables, and the wording of the notes sections was improved.

Vaccination in the pandemic

The updated schedule outlines guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization, with interim recommendations for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and older and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The authors stress the importance of receiving the recommended routine and catch-up immunizations notwithstanding widespread anxiety about visiting medical offices. Last spring, the CDC reported a dramatic drop in child vaccinations after the declaration of the national emergency in mid-March, a drop attributed to fear of COVID-19 exposure.

“ACIP continued to meet and make recommendations during the pandemic,” Dr. Freedman said. “Our recommendation remains that despite challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adults and their healthcare providers should follow the recommended vaccine schedule to protect against serious and sometimes deadly diseases.”

Regular vaccines can be safely administered even as COVID-19 retains its grasp on the United States. “Healthcare providers should follow the CDC’s interim guidance for the safe delivery of vaccines during the pandemic, which includes the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Freedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Henry Bernstein, DO, is the editor of the Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series, is a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member, and is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for a Takeda study on intrathecal enzymes for Hunter and San Filippo syndromes. Coauthor Kevin Ault, MD, has served on the data safety and monitoring committee for ACI Clinical.
 

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