Cardiology News

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.

Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.

“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.

“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”

About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.

Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.

The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.

As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.

A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.

The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.

Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.

In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.

“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”

In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”

The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.

“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”

He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.

“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”

Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.

“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.

Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.

“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.

“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”

About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.

Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.

The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.

As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.

A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.

The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.

Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.

In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.

“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”

In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”

The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.

“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”

He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.

“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”

Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.

“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.

Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.

“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.

“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”

About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.

Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.

The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.

As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.

A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.

The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.

Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.

In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.

“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”

In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”

The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.

“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”

He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.

“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”

Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.

“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

People who report regularly eating oily fish had a significantly reduced risk for developing type 2 diabetes in a prospective, observational study of nearly 400,000 UK residents.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The results also show a significant, but weaker, positive link between regular use of fish oil supplements and a drop in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, Qibin Qi, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Diabetes Care. Their analysis failed to show a significant link between consumption of non-oily fish and type 2 diabetes onset.

The study is notable for being “the largest so far” to examine the link between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence, and the first to establish a clear, significant association between regularly eating oily fish and a drop in the incidence of diabetes, said Dr. Qi, an epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

“At present, it is prudent to recommend fresh oily fish as a part of a healthy dietary pattern instead of fish oil supplements for diabetes prevention,” said Dr. Qi and coauthors.

The study included just over 392,000 adults without type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline enrolled in the UK Biobank. Median follow-up was just over 10 years, during which 7,262 participants developed diabetes.

Participants who ate either one, or two or more, servings of oily fish weekly each had a significant 22% lower rate of incident type 2 diabetes than that of those who ate no oily fish, after adjustment for multiple confounders. Those who reported regularly taking a fish oil supplement had a significant 9% lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than that of those who didn’t.
 

Evidence growing to add oily fish to diet to prevent type 2 diabetes

“Many current dietary guidelines recommend consumption of two servings of fish, preferably oily, per week, primarily based on cardiovascular benefits,” Dr. Qi said in an interview.

“No prior statements recommended oily fish for prevention of type 2 diabetes,” he explained, adding: “Our findings support future recommendations, but the evidence is not strong enough to make a [formal] recommendation now. We need evidence from clinical trials.”

Jason Wu, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in this field but was not involved with the current study, said it “is a very well-conducted study, and certainly generates important new evidence supporting the potential benefits of regular consumption of oily fish.”

But he agrees that the evidence remains too preliminary for any official recommendations on eating oily fish for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes, including targeting advice to high-risk subgroups such as those with prediabetes or people who are obese.

Before any groups make recommendations, “we need to thoroughly review all the literature in this space to appraise the overall body of evidence,” Dr. Wu noted in an interview.
 

Oily fish: Solid evidence for prevention of CVD events

In contrast, the case for including oily fish in the diet to prevent CVD events seems settled. In 2018, a panel assembled by the American Heart Association to address the issue released a statement that concluded: “Current scientific evidence strongly supports the recommendation that seafood be an integral component of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.” It added that “a large body of evidence supports the recommendation to consume nonfried seafood, especially species higher in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, one to two times per week for cardiovascular benefits, including reduced risk of cardiac death, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke.”

The statement highlighted that “cold-water oily fish such as salmon, anchovies, herring, mackerel (Atlantic and Pacific), tuna (bluefin and albacore), and sardines have the highest levels” of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, notably eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, also collectively known as omega-3 fatty acids.

These fish types were among the oily fishes tallied in the UK Biobank data used by Dr. Qi and colleagues.

The case for fish oil supplements for preventing CVD events is much rockier, as summarized in a 2019 editorial, with some studies reporting no discernible effect while others indicate efficacy.

A second commentary from December 2020 highlighted how results from the REDUCE-IT trial showed clear benefit for preventing CVD using a highly purified form of fish oil, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin). However, findings from two other recent reports, the STRENGTH and OMENI studies, failed to show CVD benefits from more conventional fish oil formulations.
 

Composite CVD and diabetes prevention effects?

The new findings by Dr. Qi and colleagues “highlight the need to specifically test the effect of fish oil supplements on glucose metabolism in people who cannot or choose not to regularly eat oily fish,” said Dr. Wu, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia.

“If eventually there is really strong evidence that fish, fish oil, or both have independent effects on both CVD and type 2 diabetes” it would be reasonable to integrate both outcomes into a single, composite, efficacy endpoint for the purpose of future studies, he added.

Dr. Qi agreed on both points. “A randomized, controlled trial of fish oil on type 2 diabetes as a primary outcome is needed. Most existing data are based on secondary analyses in the randomized trials for CVD,” he explained.

But, he added, “our results suggest a potential beneficial effect from fish oil supplements,” which implies that these may be “better than nothing” for people who can’t add oily fish to their regular diet.

The means by which fish and fish oil might slow or stop progression to type 2 diabetes remains uncertain.

The mechanisms for preventing both diabetes and CVD events may overlap, Dr. Qi noted, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved insulin sensitivity, both of which have been observed in animal studies.

Evidence is “still lacking from human studies,” he explained, but if such mechanisms were at play, Dr. Wu said that would “add biologic plausibility” to a possible causal link between oily fish consumption and diabetes prevention. 

“But we can’t assume that omega-3 fatty acids alone will have the same effect as oily fish, which obviously contains many other components.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Qi and Dr. Wu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who report regularly eating oily fish had a significantly reduced risk for developing type 2 diabetes in a prospective, observational study of nearly 400,000 UK residents.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The results also show a significant, but weaker, positive link between regular use of fish oil supplements and a drop in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, Qibin Qi, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Diabetes Care. Their analysis failed to show a significant link between consumption of non-oily fish and type 2 diabetes onset.

The study is notable for being “the largest so far” to examine the link between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence, and the first to establish a clear, significant association between regularly eating oily fish and a drop in the incidence of diabetes, said Dr. Qi, an epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

“At present, it is prudent to recommend fresh oily fish as a part of a healthy dietary pattern instead of fish oil supplements for diabetes prevention,” said Dr. Qi and coauthors.

The study included just over 392,000 adults without type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline enrolled in the UK Biobank. Median follow-up was just over 10 years, during which 7,262 participants developed diabetes.

Participants who ate either one, or two or more, servings of oily fish weekly each had a significant 22% lower rate of incident type 2 diabetes than that of those who ate no oily fish, after adjustment for multiple confounders. Those who reported regularly taking a fish oil supplement had a significant 9% lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than that of those who didn’t.
 

Evidence growing to add oily fish to diet to prevent type 2 diabetes

“Many current dietary guidelines recommend consumption of two servings of fish, preferably oily, per week, primarily based on cardiovascular benefits,” Dr. Qi said in an interview.

“No prior statements recommended oily fish for prevention of type 2 diabetes,” he explained, adding: “Our findings support future recommendations, but the evidence is not strong enough to make a [formal] recommendation now. We need evidence from clinical trials.”

Jason Wu, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in this field but was not involved with the current study, said it “is a very well-conducted study, and certainly generates important new evidence supporting the potential benefits of regular consumption of oily fish.”

But he agrees that the evidence remains too preliminary for any official recommendations on eating oily fish for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes, including targeting advice to high-risk subgroups such as those with prediabetes or people who are obese.

Before any groups make recommendations, “we need to thoroughly review all the literature in this space to appraise the overall body of evidence,” Dr. Wu noted in an interview.
 

Oily fish: Solid evidence for prevention of CVD events

In contrast, the case for including oily fish in the diet to prevent CVD events seems settled. In 2018, a panel assembled by the American Heart Association to address the issue released a statement that concluded: “Current scientific evidence strongly supports the recommendation that seafood be an integral component of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.” It added that “a large body of evidence supports the recommendation to consume nonfried seafood, especially species higher in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, one to two times per week for cardiovascular benefits, including reduced risk of cardiac death, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke.”

The statement highlighted that “cold-water oily fish such as salmon, anchovies, herring, mackerel (Atlantic and Pacific), tuna (bluefin and albacore), and sardines have the highest levels” of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, notably eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, also collectively known as omega-3 fatty acids.

These fish types were among the oily fishes tallied in the UK Biobank data used by Dr. Qi and colleagues.

The case for fish oil supplements for preventing CVD events is much rockier, as summarized in a 2019 editorial, with some studies reporting no discernible effect while others indicate efficacy.

A second commentary from December 2020 highlighted how results from the REDUCE-IT trial showed clear benefit for preventing CVD using a highly purified form of fish oil, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin). However, findings from two other recent reports, the STRENGTH and OMENI studies, failed to show CVD benefits from more conventional fish oil formulations.
 

Composite CVD and diabetes prevention effects?

The new findings by Dr. Qi and colleagues “highlight the need to specifically test the effect of fish oil supplements on glucose metabolism in people who cannot or choose not to regularly eat oily fish,” said Dr. Wu, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia.

“If eventually there is really strong evidence that fish, fish oil, or both have independent effects on both CVD and type 2 diabetes” it would be reasonable to integrate both outcomes into a single, composite, efficacy endpoint for the purpose of future studies, he added.

Dr. Qi agreed on both points. “A randomized, controlled trial of fish oil on type 2 diabetes as a primary outcome is needed. Most existing data are based on secondary analyses in the randomized trials for CVD,” he explained.

But, he added, “our results suggest a potential beneficial effect from fish oil supplements,” which implies that these may be “better than nothing” for people who can’t add oily fish to their regular diet.

The means by which fish and fish oil might slow or stop progression to type 2 diabetes remains uncertain.

The mechanisms for preventing both diabetes and CVD events may overlap, Dr. Qi noted, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved insulin sensitivity, both of which have been observed in animal studies.

Evidence is “still lacking from human studies,” he explained, but if such mechanisms were at play, Dr. Wu said that would “add biologic plausibility” to a possible causal link between oily fish consumption and diabetes prevention. 

“But we can’t assume that omega-3 fatty acids alone will have the same effect as oily fish, which obviously contains many other components.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Qi and Dr. Wu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who report regularly eating oily fish had a significantly reduced risk for developing type 2 diabetes in a prospective, observational study of nearly 400,000 UK residents.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The results also show a significant, but weaker, positive link between regular use of fish oil supplements and a drop in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, Qibin Qi, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Diabetes Care. Their analysis failed to show a significant link between consumption of non-oily fish and type 2 diabetes onset.

The study is notable for being “the largest so far” to examine the link between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence, and the first to establish a clear, significant association between regularly eating oily fish and a drop in the incidence of diabetes, said Dr. Qi, an epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

“At present, it is prudent to recommend fresh oily fish as a part of a healthy dietary pattern instead of fish oil supplements for diabetes prevention,” said Dr. Qi and coauthors.

The study included just over 392,000 adults without type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline enrolled in the UK Biobank. Median follow-up was just over 10 years, during which 7,262 participants developed diabetes.

Participants who ate either one, or two or more, servings of oily fish weekly each had a significant 22% lower rate of incident type 2 diabetes than that of those who ate no oily fish, after adjustment for multiple confounders. Those who reported regularly taking a fish oil supplement had a significant 9% lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than that of those who didn’t.
 

Evidence growing to add oily fish to diet to prevent type 2 diabetes

“Many current dietary guidelines recommend consumption of two servings of fish, preferably oily, per week, primarily based on cardiovascular benefits,” Dr. Qi said in an interview.

“No prior statements recommended oily fish for prevention of type 2 diabetes,” he explained, adding: “Our findings support future recommendations, but the evidence is not strong enough to make a [formal] recommendation now. We need evidence from clinical trials.”

Jason Wu, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in this field but was not involved with the current study, said it “is a very well-conducted study, and certainly generates important new evidence supporting the potential benefits of regular consumption of oily fish.”

But he agrees that the evidence remains too preliminary for any official recommendations on eating oily fish for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes, including targeting advice to high-risk subgroups such as those with prediabetes or people who are obese.

Before any groups make recommendations, “we need to thoroughly review all the literature in this space to appraise the overall body of evidence,” Dr. Wu noted in an interview.
 

Oily fish: Solid evidence for prevention of CVD events

In contrast, the case for including oily fish in the diet to prevent CVD events seems settled. In 2018, a panel assembled by the American Heart Association to address the issue released a statement that concluded: “Current scientific evidence strongly supports the recommendation that seafood be an integral component of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.” It added that “a large body of evidence supports the recommendation to consume nonfried seafood, especially species higher in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, one to two times per week for cardiovascular benefits, including reduced risk of cardiac death, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke.”

The statement highlighted that “cold-water oily fish such as salmon, anchovies, herring, mackerel (Atlantic and Pacific), tuna (bluefin and albacore), and sardines have the highest levels” of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, notably eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, also collectively known as omega-3 fatty acids.

These fish types were among the oily fishes tallied in the UK Biobank data used by Dr. Qi and colleagues.

The case for fish oil supplements for preventing CVD events is much rockier, as summarized in a 2019 editorial, with some studies reporting no discernible effect while others indicate efficacy.

A second commentary from December 2020 highlighted how results from the REDUCE-IT trial showed clear benefit for preventing CVD using a highly purified form of fish oil, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin). However, findings from two other recent reports, the STRENGTH and OMENI studies, failed to show CVD benefits from more conventional fish oil formulations.
 

Composite CVD and diabetes prevention effects?

The new findings by Dr. Qi and colleagues “highlight the need to specifically test the effect of fish oil supplements on glucose metabolism in people who cannot or choose not to regularly eat oily fish,” said Dr. Wu, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia.

“If eventually there is really strong evidence that fish, fish oil, or both have independent effects on both CVD and type 2 diabetes” it would be reasonable to integrate both outcomes into a single, composite, efficacy endpoint for the purpose of future studies, he added.

Dr. Qi agreed on both points. “A randomized, controlled trial of fish oil on type 2 diabetes as a primary outcome is needed. Most existing data are based on secondary analyses in the randomized trials for CVD,” he explained.

But, he added, “our results suggest a potential beneficial effect from fish oil supplements,” which implies that these may be “better than nothing” for people who can’t add oily fish to their regular diet.

The means by which fish and fish oil might slow or stop progression to type 2 diabetes remains uncertain.

The mechanisms for preventing both diabetes and CVD events may overlap, Dr. Qi noted, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved insulin sensitivity, both of which have been observed in animal studies.

Evidence is “still lacking from human studies,” he explained, but if such mechanisms were at play, Dr. Wu said that would “add biologic plausibility” to a possible causal link between oily fish consumption and diabetes prevention. 

“But we can’t assume that omega-3 fatty acids alone will have the same effect as oily fish, which obviously contains many other components.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Qi and Dr. Wu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]