Cardiology News

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Greater involvement of the patient and family in decision-making, clarity on the role of genetic testing and parameters for team-oriented care, and use of high-volume specialty centers are cornerstones of the first update in almost a decade of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

The update lists 133 recommendations for HCM care in six categories: shared decision-making; role of high-volume HCM centers; diagnosis, initial evaluation, and follow-up; risk assessment and prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD); management of HCM; and lifestyle considerations for patients.

“The guideline puts the patient front and center in the shared decision-making process and emphasizes the importance of incorporating patient’s lifestyle choices and preferences when making complex, life-altering decisions,” writing committee vice chair Seema Mital, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children, also in Toronto, said in an interview.

The fully updated guideline, authored by a joint committee of the AHA and ACC with input from other specialty societies, has been published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2011 guideline.

Another key component of the update is the strong recommendation to utilize multidisciplinary care, said Matthew W. Martinez, MD, a writing committee member and sports cardiologists at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “This is not only as a part of shared decision-making, but really in care for the patients,” he said, “that there’s a level of expertise that is provided by centers of excellence who handle HCM, and we did lay out some recommendations with regards to surgery, imaging, interventionists, and management with electrophysiology, and the care of athletes with potential for HCM and pregnant women.”

The update ranks recommendations by class of recommendation (COR), ranging from strong benefit much greater than risk to harm with risk exceeding benefit, and level of evidence (LOE). The recommendation for shared decision making, for example, carries at COR of 1, the highest rating, and a mid-level LOE of B-NR, meaning from nonrandomized studies. Patients who need septal reduction therapy (SRT) should be referred to a comprehensive or primary HCM center – a recommendation with a COR of 1 but an LOE of C-LD, meaning there are limited data.
 

From diagnosis to follow-up

The most extensive list of recommendations falls under the category covering diagnosis, initial evaluation and follow-up. They include a three-generation family history as part of the initial diagnostic assessment (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), high-level recommendations for use of transthoracic echocardiogram in the initial work-up, every 1 or 2 years or when the patient’s status changes in confirmed cases, as well as parameters for using other imaging and diagnostic tests. Cardiovascular MRI, for example, is indicated when echocardiography is inconclusive (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR) and in other scenarios. When echocardiography is inconclusive but cardiac MRI isn’t available, cardiac CT is an option, albeit at a lower level of evidence (COR, 2b; LOE, C-LD).

Heart rhythm assessment has a high level of recommendation in multiple scenarios, even in first-degree relatives of HCM patients. Invasive hemodynamic assessment is in order for candidates of SRT whose left ventricular (LV) outflow tract obstruction status is unknown. This category also sets parameters for angiography, and exercise stress testing.

The most extensive recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up cover genetic testing; it consists of nine high-level recommendations.

“The guideline highlights not only the importance of genetic testing of an affected patient and genetic screening of family members, but also emphasizes ongoing reassessment of variant classification as this may evolve with time and change how we recommend ongoing family screening,” Dr. Mital noted.

“The guideline proposes initiating screening of family members at the earliest regardless of age given HCM can manifest at any age in affected families,” she added.

The guideline notes that the usefulness of genetic testing to evaluate the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is uncertain. There’s even guidance for implementing those test results. Further testing is recommended for patients who are genotype positive and phenotype negative for HCM (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR). Those same patients may participate in competitive sports (COR, 2a; LOE, C-LD), but a pacemaker isn’t recommended as a primary prevention (COR, 3 [no benefit]; LOE, B-NR).
 

Risk evaluation and prevention

For SCD risk evaluation and prevention, the guideline spells out five components for the initial and follow-up evaluations (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR). That includes maximal LV wall thickness, ejection fraction, and LV apical aneurysm. The section include multiple recommendations for patient selection for placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). For example, it’s recommended for patient’s who’ve had a heart attack or sustained ventricular tachycardia (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), but not so much for patients without risk factors or for participating in sports (COR, 3 [harm]; LOE, B-NR). The guideline even provides recommendations for selecting an ICD.

Management recommendations address when medical therapy is indicated, including which therapies are indicated for specific scenarios, as well as higher level interventions such as SRT for severely symptomatic patients with obstructive HCM (COR, 2b; LOE, C-LD) and surgical myectomy with ablation in patients with HCM and atrial fibrillation (COR, 2a; LOE, B-NR). This section also provides recommendations for managing patients with HCM and ventricular arrhythmias or advanced heart failure.

The guideline also includes a host of lifestyle considerations. Mild to moderate exercise is beneficial (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), but athletes with HCM should consult with an “expert provider” (COR, 1; LOE, C, meaning based on expert opinion). Truck drivers, pilots and people who do strenuous physical labor with HCM should meet specific standards.

These recommendations again emphasize the role of shared decision-making, said Dr. Martinez. “It’s not a cookie-cutter discussion. It is taking all of the information, incorporating what the patient’s needs are, and then making sure you appropriately tell them what are the risks of exercising and not exercising. I have as many discussions through the day about what the risks of exercise are as I do the risks of not exercising.”
 

Refining nomenclature, pathophysiology

The writing committee addressed the nomenclature for HCM. The use of HCM to describe increased LV wall thickness linked to systemic diseases or secondary to LV hypertrophy “can lead to confusion,” the committee stated, so other cardiac or systemic causes of LV hypertrophy shouldn’t be labeled HCM. Other etiologies can cause secondary LV hypertrophy that can overlap with HCM; clinical markers and testing can help differentiate these mimickers from HCM. When echocardiography is inconclusive, cardiovascular MRI is indicated (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR).

The guideline update also provides clarity on the pathophysiology of HCM: It consists of dynamic LV outflow tract obstruction, mitral regurgitation, diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, or autonomic dysfunction. “For a given patient with HCM, the clinical outcome may be dominated by one of these components or may be the result of a complex interplay,” the guideline states. The clinical evaluation should consider all these conditions.

This update also provides “clear separation” between care of HCM with and without obstruction, Dr. Martinez said. “The role of advanced therapies and referrals with advanced treatment options such as heart transplantation or CRT therapy in this group is different than before, recognizing that people with obstruction have symptoms that may be similar to those without obstruction, and the individual should be [thoroughly] investigated to make sure that you can discern between those two groups to make appropriate recommendations.”

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. It’s also been endorsed by the Pediatric & Congenital Electrophysiology Society.

Dr. Mital and Dr. Martinez have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Mital S et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.044.

Greater involvement of the patient and family in decision-making, clarity on the role of genetic testing and parameters for team-oriented care, and use of high-volume specialty centers are cornerstones of the first update in almost a decade of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

The update lists 133 recommendations for HCM care in six categories: shared decision-making; role of high-volume HCM centers; diagnosis, initial evaluation, and follow-up; risk assessment and prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD); management of HCM; and lifestyle considerations for patients.

“The guideline puts the patient front and center in the shared decision-making process and emphasizes the importance of incorporating patient’s lifestyle choices and preferences when making complex, life-altering decisions,” writing committee vice chair Seema Mital, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children, also in Toronto, said in an interview.

The fully updated guideline, authored by a joint committee of the AHA and ACC with input from other specialty societies, has been published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2011 guideline.

Another key component of the update is the strong recommendation to utilize multidisciplinary care, said Matthew W. Martinez, MD, a writing committee member and sports cardiologists at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “This is not only as a part of shared decision-making, but really in care for the patients,” he said, “that there’s a level of expertise that is provided by centers of excellence who handle HCM, and we did lay out some recommendations with regards to surgery, imaging, interventionists, and management with electrophysiology, and the care of athletes with potential for HCM and pregnant women.”

The update ranks recommendations by class of recommendation (COR), ranging from strong benefit much greater than risk to harm with risk exceeding benefit, and level of evidence (LOE). The recommendation for shared decision making, for example, carries at COR of 1, the highest rating, and a mid-level LOE of B-NR, meaning from nonrandomized studies. Patients who need septal reduction therapy (SRT) should be referred to a comprehensive or primary HCM center – a recommendation with a COR of 1 but an LOE of C-LD, meaning there are limited data.
 

From diagnosis to follow-up

The most extensive list of recommendations falls under the category covering diagnosis, initial evaluation and follow-up. They include a three-generation family history as part of the initial diagnostic assessment (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), high-level recommendations for use of transthoracic echocardiogram in the initial work-up, every 1 or 2 years or when the patient’s status changes in confirmed cases, as well as parameters for using other imaging and diagnostic tests. Cardiovascular MRI, for example, is indicated when echocardiography is inconclusive (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR) and in other scenarios. When echocardiography is inconclusive but cardiac MRI isn’t available, cardiac CT is an option, albeit at a lower level of evidence (COR, 2b; LOE, C-LD).

Heart rhythm assessment has a high level of recommendation in multiple scenarios, even in first-degree relatives of HCM patients. Invasive hemodynamic assessment is in order for candidates of SRT whose left ventricular (LV) outflow tract obstruction status is unknown. This category also sets parameters for angiography, and exercise stress testing.

The most extensive recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up cover genetic testing; it consists of nine high-level recommendations.

“The guideline highlights not only the importance of genetic testing of an affected patient and genetic screening of family members, but also emphasizes ongoing reassessment of variant classification as this may evolve with time and change how we recommend ongoing family screening,” Dr. Mital noted.

“The guideline proposes initiating screening of family members at the earliest regardless of age given HCM can manifest at any age in affected families,” she added.

The guideline notes that the usefulness of genetic testing to evaluate the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is uncertain. There’s even guidance for implementing those test results. Further testing is recommended for patients who are genotype positive and phenotype negative for HCM (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR). Those same patients may participate in competitive sports (COR, 2a; LOE, C-LD), but a pacemaker isn’t recommended as a primary prevention (COR, 3 [no benefit]; LOE, B-NR).
 

Risk evaluation and prevention

For SCD risk evaluation and prevention, the guideline spells out five components for the initial and follow-up evaluations (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR). That includes maximal LV wall thickness, ejection fraction, and LV apical aneurysm. The section include multiple recommendations for patient selection for placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). For example, it’s recommended for patient’s who’ve had a heart attack or sustained ventricular tachycardia (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), but not so much for patients without risk factors or for participating in sports (COR, 3 [harm]; LOE, B-NR). The guideline even provides recommendations for selecting an ICD.

Management recommendations address when medical therapy is indicated, including which therapies are indicated for specific scenarios, as well as higher level interventions such as SRT for severely symptomatic patients with obstructive HCM (COR, 2b; LOE, C-LD) and surgical myectomy with ablation in patients with HCM and atrial fibrillation (COR, 2a; LOE, B-NR). This section also provides recommendations for managing patients with HCM and ventricular arrhythmias or advanced heart failure.

The guideline also includes a host of lifestyle considerations. Mild to moderate exercise is beneficial (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), but athletes with HCM should consult with an “expert provider” (COR, 1; LOE, C, meaning based on expert opinion). Truck drivers, pilots and people who do strenuous physical labor with HCM should meet specific standards.

These recommendations again emphasize the role of shared decision-making, said Dr. Martinez. “It’s not a cookie-cutter discussion. It is taking all of the information, incorporating what the patient’s needs are, and then making sure you appropriately tell them what are the risks of exercising and not exercising. I have as many discussions through the day about what the risks of exercise are as I do the risks of not exercising.”
 

Refining nomenclature, pathophysiology

The writing committee addressed the nomenclature for HCM. The use of HCM to describe increased LV wall thickness linked to systemic diseases or secondary to LV hypertrophy “can lead to confusion,” the committee stated, so other cardiac or systemic causes of LV hypertrophy shouldn’t be labeled HCM. Other etiologies can cause secondary LV hypertrophy that can overlap with HCM; clinical markers and testing can help differentiate these mimickers from HCM. When echocardiography is inconclusive, cardiovascular MRI is indicated (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR).

The guideline update also provides clarity on the pathophysiology of HCM: It consists of dynamic LV outflow tract obstruction, mitral regurgitation, diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, or autonomic dysfunction. “For a given patient with HCM, the clinical outcome may be dominated by one of these components or may be the result of a complex interplay,” the guideline states. The clinical evaluation should consider all these conditions.

This update also provides “clear separation” between care of HCM with and without obstruction, Dr. Martinez said. “The role of advanced therapies and referrals with advanced treatment options such as heart transplantation or CRT therapy in this group is different than before, recognizing that people with obstruction have symptoms that may be similar to those without obstruction, and the individual should be [thoroughly] investigated to make sure that you can discern between those two groups to make appropriate recommendations.”

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. It’s also been endorsed by the Pediatric & Congenital Electrophysiology Society.

Dr. Mital and Dr. Martinez have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Mital S et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.044.

Greater involvement of the patient and family in decision-making, clarity on the role of genetic testing and parameters for team-oriented care, and use of high-volume specialty centers are cornerstones of the first update in almost a decade of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

The update lists 133 recommendations for HCM care in six categories: shared decision-making; role of high-volume HCM centers; diagnosis, initial evaluation, and follow-up; risk assessment and prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD); management of HCM; and lifestyle considerations for patients.

“The guideline puts the patient front and center in the shared decision-making process and emphasizes the importance of incorporating patient’s lifestyle choices and preferences when making complex, life-altering decisions,” writing committee vice chair Seema Mital, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children, also in Toronto, said in an interview.

The fully updated guideline, authored by a joint committee of the AHA and ACC with input from other specialty societies, has been published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2011 guideline.

Another key component of the update is the strong recommendation to utilize multidisciplinary care, said Matthew W. Martinez, MD, a writing committee member and sports cardiologists at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “This is not only as a part of shared decision-making, but really in care for the patients,” he said, “that there’s a level of expertise that is provided by centers of excellence who handle HCM, and we did lay out some recommendations with regards to surgery, imaging, interventionists, and management with electrophysiology, and the care of athletes with potential for HCM and pregnant women.”

The update ranks recommendations by class of recommendation (COR), ranging from strong benefit much greater than risk to harm with risk exceeding benefit, and level of evidence (LOE). The recommendation for shared decision making, for example, carries at COR of 1, the highest rating, and a mid-level LOE of B-NR, meaning from nonrandomized studies. Patients who need septal reduction therapy (SRT) should be referred to a comprehensive or primary HCM center – a recommendation with a COR of 1 but an LOE of C-LD, meaning there are limited data.
 

From diagnosis to follow-up

The most extensive list of recommendations falls under the category covering diagnosis, initial evaluation and follow-up. They include a three-generation family history as part of the initial diagnostic assessment (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), high-level recommendations for use of transthoracic echocardiogram in the initial work-up, every 1 or 2 years or when the patient’s status changes in confirmed cases, as well as parameters for using other imaging and diagnostic tests. Cardiovascular MRI, for example, is indicated when echocardiography is inconclusive (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR) and in other scenarios. When echocardiography is inconclusive but cardiac MRI isn’t available, cardiac CT is an option, albeit at a lower level of evidence (COR, 2b; LOE, C-LD).

Heart rhythm assessment has a high level of recommendation in multiple scenarios, even in first-degree relatives of HCM patients. Invasive hemodynamic assessment is in order for candidates of SRT whose left ventricular (LV) outflow tract obstruction status is unknown. This category also sets parameters for angiography, and exercise stress testing.

The most extensive recommendations for diagnosis and follow-up cover genetic testing; it consists of nine high-level recommendations.

“The guideline highlights not only the importance of genetic testing of an affected patient and genetic screening of family members, but also emphasizes ongoing reassessment of variant classification as this may evolve with time and change how we recommend ongoing family screening,” Dr. Mital noted.

“The guideline proposes initiating screening of family members at the earliest regardless of age given HCM can manifest at any age in affected families,” she added.

The guideline notes that the usefulness of genetic testing to evaluate the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is uncertain. There’s even guidance for implementing those test results. Further testing is recommended for patients who are genotype positive and phenotype negative for HCM (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR). Those same patients may participate in competitive sports (COR, 2a; LOE, C-LD), but a pacemaker isn’t recommended as a primary prevention (COR, 3 [no benefit]; LOE, B-NR).
 

Risk evaluation and prevention

For SCD risk evaluation and prevention, the guideline spells out five components for the initial and follow-up evaluations (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR). That includes maximal LV wall thickness, ejection fraction, and LV apical aneurysm. The section include multiple recommendations for patient selection for placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). For example, it’s recommended for patient’s who’ve had a heart attack or sustained ventricular tachycardia (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), but not so much for patients without risk factors or for participating in sports (COR, 3 [harm]; LOE, B-NR). The guideline even provides recommendations for selecting an ICD.

Management recommendations address when medical therapy is indicated, including which therapies are indicated for specific scenarios, as well as higher level interventions such as SRT for severely symptomatic patients with obstructive HCM (COR, 2b; LOE, C-LD) and surgical myectomy with ablation in patients with HCM and atrial fibrillation (COR, 2a; LOE, B-NR). This section also provides recommendations for managing patients with HCM and ventricular arrhythmias or advanced heart failure.

The guideline also includes a host of lifestyle considerations. Mild to moderate exercise is beneficial (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR), but athletes with HCM should consult with an “expert provider” (COR, 1; LOE, C, meaning based on expert opinion). Truck drivers, pilots and people who do strenuous physical labor with HCM should meet specific standards.

These recommendations again emphasize the role of shared decision-making, said Dr. Martinez. “It’s not a cookie-cutter discussion. It is taking all of the information, incorporating what the patient’s needs are, and then making sure you appropriately tell them what are the risks of exercising and not exercising. I have as many discussions through the day about what the risks of exercise are as I do the risks of not exercising.”
 

Refining nomenclature, pathophysiology

The writing committee addressed the nomenclature for HCM. The use of HCM to describe increased LV wall thickness linked to systemic diseases or secondary to LV hypertrophy “can lead to confusion,” the committee stated, so other cardiac or systemic causes of LV hypertrophy shouldn’t be labeled HCM. Other etiologies can cause secondary LV hypertrophy that can overlap with HCM; clinical markers and testing can help differentiate these mimickers from HCM. When echocardiography is inconclusive, cardiovascular MRI is indicated (COR, 1; LOE, B-NR).

The guideline update also provides clarity on the pathophysiology of HCM: It consists of dynamic LV outflow tract obstruction, mitral regurgitation, diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, or autonomic dysfunction. “For a given patient with HCM, the clinical outcome may be dominated by one of these components or may be the result of a complex interplay,” the guideline states. The clinical evaluation should consider all these conditions.

This update also provides “clear separation” between care of HCM with and without obstruction, Dr. Martinez said. “The role of advanced therapies and referrals with advanced treatment options such as heart transplantation or CRT therapy in this group is different than before, recognizing that people with obstruction have symptoms that may be similar to those without obstruction, and the individual should be [thoroughly] investigated to make sure that you can discern between those two groups to make appropriate recommendations.”

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. It’s also been endorsed by the Pediatric & Congenital Electrophysiology Society.

Dr. Mital and Dr. Martinez have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Mital S et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.044.

Medtronic’s launch of a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the first such device for use by people with diabetes who use multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin.

Initially launched by Companion Medical in 2017, the InPen system is a reusable insulin injector pen combined with a smartphone app that provides insulin dose calculation information and tracking.

Medtronic acquired Companion in September 2020 and now the new version, the InPen with Real-Time Guardian Connect CGM Data, allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information in the same app.

The InPen, a so-called “connected delivery device,” also provides reports that aggregate insulin, glucose, and carbohydrate information into graphical displays. As with other current CGM systems, the information can be sent wirelessly to a clinician. And as with insulin pumps, the pens are programmed with target blood glucose levels, insulin-to-carb ratios, and insulin sensitivity parameters. The device tracks “insulin on board” and delivers reminders for basal and bolus doses.

InPen delivers only short-acting insulin from cartridges, all the three major brands. Patients who need long-acting insulin still need to inject that separately.

Barry H. Ginsberg, MD, PhD, of Diabetes Technology Consultants, Arlington, Va., said in an interview, “People using pumps have had data integration for a while now. This is an excellent first step in data integration for people doing MDI and I am sure it will improve blood glucose control.”

Asked about comparative costs, Medtronic spokeswoman Pamela Reese said in an interview, “While insurance costs will vary, the smart pen is less expensive than the insulin pump.”

Smart pens: How large is the market?

Speaking on Nov. 14 at the Diabetes Technology Society conference, diabetes care and education specialist Hope Warshaw, RD, gave an overview of the current smart pen/connected delivery device landscape.

She noted that the patient population who might benefit from smart pens, those using MDI, which is defined as injecting both long-acting insulin and short-acting insulin before meals, may be larger than appreciated. There are about 1.6 million U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom just 30%-40% currently use insulin pumps. In addition, of the 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes who take insulin, about 29%, or 1.7 million, use MDI.

Among those with type 1 diabetes, she said that smart pens might be a good option for “people who don’t want to wear the physical pump. They can deal with the sensor, but for psychological reasons or they have dermatologic issues, they just can’t wear a pump.”

But, Ms. Warshaw stressed, the type 2 diabetes population shouldn’t be overlooked. “More and more people with type 2 diabetes are on MDI. ... In fact, there are more who use MDI than the entire population with type 1 diabetes. ... This is happening because people with type 2 are getting it earlier and living longer.”

Dr. Ginsberg views smart pens as a bridge between simple pen injectors to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, those that link insulin pumps with CGMs.

Regarding patients with type 1 diabetes, he said, “I see pen users on MDI slowly moving to integrated systems and then, when comfortable with the technology, moving to AID, finances allowing.”

As for those with type 2 diabetes, he said that they “are less computer literate and less likely to move to integrated systems, but they will, over time.”

In all, Dr. Ginsberg said, “I see integrated pens as increasing, not decreasing, the AID market.”
 

Emerging field: “I think they’re here to stay”

The new Medtronic InPen system can still display information from other compatible CGM systems, but on a 3-hour delay. This is important since the Guardian is not currently approved for determining insulin doses. In order to do that, users must still either use readings from another CGM system on a separate app or perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements.

The InPen is the first CGM-integrated pen device but is not likely to be the last. Similar technologies are being pursued by all three of the major insulin manufacturers and some other companies.

Eli Lilly’s Humalog Tempo Pen, a modified version of KwikPen, is integrated with the Dexcom CGM. The pen itself has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but some of the component parts await authorization.

Novo Nordisk is expected to file with the FDA in 2021 for its NovoPen Echo Plus.

For its part, in December 2019, Sanofi teamed up with Bioport to fit its SoloStar insulin pens with their technology called Mallya, which had received CE Mark in June 2019. That device, which clips onto the top and the button of most major pens, adds smart pen capacity via Bluetooth. BioCorp also has teamed up with other manufacturers including Roche and AgaMatrix.

Another major player, Bigfoot Biomedical, has filed with the FDA for its connected pen that works with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM.

Ms. Warshaw advised, “We need to start talking more about the ways that peoples’ wants, needs, and desires change and evolve over the person’s life as their diabetes evolves and as all this technology evolves.

“Time will tell how many people will be on the very expensive [AID] systems. ... Pens are cheaper. The main cost is insulin. I think they’re here to stay. The big insulin makers wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.”

Dr. Ginsberg has no disclosures. Ms. Warshaw is a consultant and writer for Companion Medical/Medtronic and a faculty member of LifeScan Diabetes Institute.
 

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

Medtronic’s launch of a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the first such device for use by people with diabetes who use multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin.

Initially launched by Companion Medical in 2017, the InPen system is a reusable insulin injector pen combined with a smartphone app that provides insulin dose calculation information and tracking.

Medtronic acquired Companion in September 2020 and now the new version, the InPen with Real-Time Guardian Connect CGM Data, allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information in the same app.

The InPen, a so-called “connected delivery device,” also provides reports that aggregate insulin, glucose, and carbohydrate information into graphical displays. As with other current CGM systems, the information can be sent wirelessly to a clinician. And as with insulin pumps, the pens are programmed with target blood glucose levels, insulin-to-carb ratios, and insulin sensitivity parameters. The device tracks “insulin on board” and delivers reminders for basal and bolus doses.

InPen delivers only short-acting insulin from cartridges, all the three major brands. Patients who need long-acting insulin still need to inject that separately.

Barry H. Ginsberg, MD, PhD, of Diabetes Technology Consultants, Arlington, Va., said in an interview, “People using pumps have had data integration for a while now. This is an excellent first step in data integration for people doing MDI and I am sure it will improve blood glucose control.”

Asked about comparative costs, Medtronic spokeswoman Pamela Reese said in an interview, “While insurance costs will vary, the smart pen is less expensive than the insulin pump.”

Smart pens: How large is the market?

Speaking on Nov. 14 at the Diabetes Technology Society conference, diabetes care and education specialist Hope Warshaw, RD, gave an overview of the current smart pen/connected delivery device landscape.

She noted that the patient population who might benefit from smart pens, those using MDI, which is defined as injecting both long-acting insulin and short-acting insulin before meals, may be larger than appreciated. There are about 1.6 million U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom just 30%-40% currently use insulin pumps. In addition, of the 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes who take insulin, about 29%, or 1.7 million, use MDI.

Among those with type 1 diabetes, she said that smart pens might be a good option for “people who don’t want to wear the physical pump. They can deal with the sensor, but for psychological reasons or they have dermatologic issues, they just can’t wear a pump.”

But, Ms. Warshaw stressed, the type 2 diabetes population shouldn’t be overlooked. “More and more people with type 2 diabetes are on MDI. ... In fact, there are more who use MDI than the entire population with type 1 diabetes. ... This is happening because people with type 2 are getting it earlier and living longer.”

Dr. Ginsberg views smart pens as a bridge between simple pen injectors to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, those that link insulin pumps with CGMs.

Regarding patients with type 1 diabetes, he said, “I see pen users on MDI slowly moving to integrated systems and then, when comfortable with the technology, moving to AID, finances allowing.”

As for those with type 2 diabetes, he said that they “are less computer literate and less likely to move to integrated systems, but they will, over time.”

In all, Dr. Ginsberg said, “I see integrated pens as increasing, not decreasing, the AID market.”
 

Emerging field: “I think they’re here to stay”

The new Medtronic InPen system can still display information from other compatible CGM systems, but on a 3-hour delay. This is important since the Guardian is not currently approved for determining insulin doses. In order to do that, users must still either use readings from another CGM system on a separate app or perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements.

The InPen is the first CGM-integrated pen device but is not likely to be the last. Similar technologies are being pursued by all three of the major insulin manufacturers and some other companies.

Eli Lilly’s Humalog Tempo Pen, a modified version of KwikPen, is integrated with the Dexcom CGM. The pen itself has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but some of the component parts await authorization.

Novo Nordisk is expected to file with the FDA in 2021 for its NovoPen Echo Plus.

For its part, in December 2019, Sanofi teamed up with Bioport to fit its SoloStar insulin pens with their technology called Mallya, which had received CE Mark in June 2019. That device, which clips onto the top and the button of most major pens, adds smart pen capacity via Bluetooth. BioCorp also has teamed up with other manufacturers including Roche and AgaMatrix.

Another major player, Bigfoot Biomedical, has filed with the FDA for its connected pen that works with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM.

Ms. Warshaw advised, “We need to start talking more about the ways that peoples’ wants, needs, and desires change and evolve over the person’s life as their diabetes evolves and as all this technology evolves.

“Time will tell how many people will be on the very expensive [AID] systems. ... Pens are cheaper. The main cost is insulin. I think they’re here to stay. The big insulin makers wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.”

Dr. Ginsberg has no disclosures. Ms. Warshaw is a consultant and writer for Companion Medical/Medtronic and a faculty member of LifeScan Diabetes Institute.
 

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

Medtronic’s launch of a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the first such device for use by people with diabetes who use multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin.

Initially launched by Companion Medical in 2017, the InPen system is a reusable insulin injector pen combined with a smartphone app that provides insulin dose calculation information and tracking.

Medtronic acquired Companion in September 2020 and now the new version, the InPen with Real-Time Guardian Connect CGM Data, allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information in the same app.

The InPen, a so-called “connected delivery device,” also provides reports that aggregate insulin, glucose, and carbohydrate information into graphical displays. As with other current CGM systems, the information can be sent wirelessly to a clinician. And as with insulin pumps, the pens are programmed with target blood glucose levels, insulin-to-carb ratios, and insulin sensitivity parameters. The device tracks “insulin on board” and delivers reminders for basal and bolus doses.

InPen delivers only short-acting insulin from cartridges, all the three major brands. Patients who need long-acting insulin still need to inject that separately.

Barry H. Ginsberg, MD, PhD, of Diabetes Technology Consultants, Arlington, Va., said in an interview, “People using pumps have had data integration for a while now. This is an excellent first step in data integration for people doing MDI and I am sure it will improve blood glucose control.”

Asked about comparative costs, Medtronic spokeswoman Pamela Reese said in an interview, “While insurance costs will vary, the smart pen is less expensive than the insulin pump.”

Smart pens: How large is the market?

Speaking on Nov. 14 at the Diabetes Technology Society conference, diabetes care and education specialist Hope Warshaw, RD, gave an overview of the current smart pen/connected delivery device landscape.

She noted that the patient population who might benefit from smart pens, those using MDI, which is defined as injecting both long-acting insulin and short-acting insulin before meals, may be larger than appreciated. There are about 1.6 million U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom just 30%-40% currently use insulin pumps. In addition, of the 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes who take insulin, about 29%, or 1.7 million, use MDI.

Among those with type 1 diabetes, she said that smart pens might be a good option for “people who don’t want to wear the physical pump. They can deal with the sensor, but for psychological reasons or they have dermatologic issues, they just can’t wear a pump.”

But, Ms. Warshaw stressed, the type 2 diabetes population shouldn’t be overlooked. “More and more people with type 2 diabetes are on MDI. ... In fact, there are more who use MDI than the entire population with type 1 diabetes. ... This is happening because people with type 2 are getting it earlier and living longer.”

Dr. Ginsberg views smart pens as a bridge between simple pen injectors to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, those that link insulin pumps with CGMs.

Regarding patients with type 1 diabetes, he said, “I see pen users on MDI slowly moving to integrated systems and then, when comfortable with the technology, moving to AID, finances allowing.”

As for those with type 2 diabetes, he said that they “are less computer literate and less likely to move to integrated systems, but they will, over time.”

In all, Dr. Ginsberg said, “I see integrated pens as increasing, not decreasing, the AID market.”
 

Emerging field: “I think they’re here to stay”

The new Medtronic InPen system can still display information from other compatible CGM systems, but on a 3-hour delay. This is important since the Guardian is not currently approved for determining insulin doses. In order to do that, users must still either use readings from another CGM system on a separate app or perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements.

The InPen is the first CGM-integrated pen device but is not likely to be the last. Similar technologies are being pursued by all three of the major insulin manufacturers and some other companies.

Eli Lilly’s Humalog Tempo Pen, a modified version of KwikPen, is integrated with the Dexcom CGM. The pen itself has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but some of the component parts await authorization.

Novo Nordisk is expected to file with the FDA in 2021 for its NovoPen Echo Plus.

For its part, in December 2019, Sanofi teamed up with Bioport to fit its SoloStar insulin pens with their technology called Mallya, which had received CE Mark in June 2019. That device, which clips onto the top and the button of most major pens, adds smart pen capacity via Bluetooth. BioCorp also has teamed up with other manufacturers including Roche and AgaMatrix.

Another major player, Bigfoot Biomedical, has filed with the FDA for its connected pen that works with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM.

Ms. Warshaw advised, “We need to start talking more about the ways that peoples’ wants, needs, and desires change and evolve over the person’s life as their diabetes evolves and as all this technology evolves.

“Time will tell how many people will be on the very expensive [AID] systems. ... Pens are cheaper. The main cost is insulin. I think they’re here to stay. The big insulin makers wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.”

Dr. Ginsberg has no disclosures. Ms. Warshaw is a consultant and writer for Companion Medical/Medtronic and a faculty member of LifeScan Diabetes Institute.
 

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

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.

“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”

The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.

“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.

In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.

The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.

Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.

In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.

It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.

“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.

Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.

“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
 

SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.

Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.

“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”

The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.

“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.

In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.

The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.

Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.

In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.

It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.

“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.

Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.

“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
 

SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.

Restricting percutaneous interventions (PCI) to only those stenotic lesions that are ischemic by fractional flow reserve (FFR) thresholds is associated with better 5-year outcomes whether or not PCI is deployed, according to a cohort study presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For those that met the FFR threshold for ischemia, defined as up to 0.80, PCI reduced the risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 5 years by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.77) relative to no PCI. Conversely, those not indicated for PCI because of a higher FFR had a 37% higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.37) at 5 years if treated with PCI relative to those who were not.

“The story of overuse of PCI is important,” reported the senior author Dennis Ko, MD, a scientist affiliated with the Schulich Heart Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Canada. “We as interventionalists often think that putting in a stent is not harmful, and that turned out not to be the case.”

The FFR threshold for intervening with PCI is evidence based. Several trials, including one published in 2014, have associated PCI with better outcomes relative to medical therapy when FFR is 0.80 or lower. Other evidence suggests no advantage and possible harm for PCI performed if FFR is higher. Multiple guidelines, including those from the AHA, recommend against PCI if FFR is more than 0.80.

“As FRR is gaining in popularity, we were interested in whether physicians follow the thresholds in routine clinical practice and what happens to patient outcomes [if they are or are not followed],” Dr. Ko explained.

In this retrospective study by Dr. Ko’s trainee, Maneesh Sud, MD, and simultaneously published in JAMA, the answer was that there is deviation, and deviation leads to bad outcomes.

The 9,106 coronary artery disease patients included in the study underwent single-vessel FFR assessment within a 5-year period in Canada. The two cohorts evaluated were those with a lesional FFR of 0.80 or less, defined as ischemic, and those with a lesion with higher FFR, defined as nonischemic. The primary MACE outcome comprised death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or urgent coronary revascularization.

Of the 2,693 patients who met the FFR threshold of ischemia, 75.3% received PCI, and 24.7% were treated with medical therapy only. Of the 6,413 patients with nonischemic FFR, 87.4% were treated with medical therapy and 12.6% received PCI.

In those with ischemic FFR, event curves for MACE separated rapidly. At 30 days, the risk of MACE was 53% lower (HR, 0.47) in those receiving PCI. By 1 year, the advantage was less (HR, 0.76), but it was steady thereafter and remained about the same at 5 years (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.94). Relative advantages for each component of MACE went in the same direction. At 5 years, PCI exerted its greatest numerical advantage for the outcome or urgent coronary revascularization (HR, 0.71) and its least numerical advantage for MI (HR, 0.92), but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

In those with nonischemic coronary lesions on FFR, PCI was associated with more than twice the risk for MACE at 30 days (HR, 2.11), but the increase in risk relative to medical management fell at 1 year (HR 1.67) and 5 years (HR, 1.37). All of the individual components of MACE were numerically increased at all time points except for death, which was numerically lower at 30 days (HR, 0.41) and 5 years (HR, 0.94), even though these differences were not significant.

It could not be ascertained from these data why PCI was not performed when there was an indication or why it was performed when there was not. The investigators speculated that some clinicians may decide against PCI for ischemic lesions in the absence of symptoms or when concerned about comorbidities. They might offer PCI in nonischemic lesions because of symptoms, positive tests other than FFR, or FFR values near the threshold.

“I think the main message of our paper is that adherence of the FFR threshold as established by clinical trials is important,” Dr. Ko said in an interview. This not only means performing PCI when it is indicated, but refraining from PCI when it is not.

Basically, this study confirms that the guideline thresholds are valid, according to Jared M. O’Leary, MD, who is experienced with FFR and is Medical Director for Quality at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

“It confirms the utility of FFR in the real world,” he said, adding that the results are “totally consistent with our practice.” He called FFR “an important tool in the cardiac cath lab” not only for determining when revascularization will benefit the patient but the opposite.

“The flip side is also true: Stenting should be avoided if a negative FFR is obtained,” he said, calling this technique “particularly useful for lesions that appear borderline by visual estimation alone.”
 

SOURCE: Sud M et al. AHA 2020. JAMA. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22708.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.

Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.

Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.

The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.

Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.

The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.

The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.

As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
 

‘Historic 8-month journey’

The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”

Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”

The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.

The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.

Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.

Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.

The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.

Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.

The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.

The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.

As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
 

‘Historic 8-month journey’

The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”

Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”

The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.

The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.

Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.

Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.

The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.

Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.

The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.

The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.

As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
 

‘Historic 8-month journey’

The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”

Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”

The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.

The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.

Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.

The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).

Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
 

Patients hop onboard

Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.

Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.

Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.

Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
 

Few patients go to hospital

Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.

A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.

Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Augmenting hospital capacity

The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.

Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”

How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”

If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.

For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.

The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
 

Prior planning paid off

Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.

While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.

Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
 

COVID vs. non-COVID patients

Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)

Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.

Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”

Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”

The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.

Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”

Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.

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

A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.

Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.

The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).

Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
 

Patients hop onboard

Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.

Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.

Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.

Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
 

Few patients go to hospital

Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.

A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.

Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Augmenting hospital capacity

The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.

Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”

How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”

If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.

For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.

The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
 

Prior planning paid off

Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.

While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.

Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
 

COVID vs. non-COVID patients

Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)

Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.

Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”

Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”

The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.

Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”

Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.

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

A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.

Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.

The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).

Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
 

Patients hop onboard

Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.

Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.

Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.

Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
 

Few patients go to hospital

Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.

A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.

Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Augmenting hospital capacity

The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.

Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”

How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”

If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.

For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.

The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
 

Prior planning paid off

Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.

While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.

Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
 

COVID vs. non-COVID patients

Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)

Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.

Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”

Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”

The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.

Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”

Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.

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

Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported in JAMA.

©Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

However, two experts in this area suggested there is evidence if you know where to look, and pediatric BP testing is crucial now.

In this update to the 2013 statement, the USPSTF’s systematic review focused on evidence surrounding the benefits of screening, test accuracy, treatment effectiveness and harms, and links between hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) markers in childhood and adulthood.

Limited information was available on the accuracy of screening tests. No studies were found that directly evaluated screening for pediatric high BP or reported effectiveness in delayed onset or risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes related to hypertension. Additionally, no studies were found that addressed screening for secondary hypertension in asymptomatic pediatric patients. No studies were found that evaluated the treatment of primary childhood hypertension and BP reduction or other outcomes in adulthood. The panel also was unable to identify any studies that reported on harms of screening and treatment.

When the adult framework for cardiovascular risk reduction is extended in pediatric patients, there are methodological challenges that make it harder to determine how much of the potential burden can actually be prevented, the panel said. The clinical and epidemiologic significance of percentile thresholds that are used to determine their ties to adult CVD has limited supporting evidence. Inconsistent performance characteristics of current diagnostic methods, of which there are few, tend to yield unfavorable high false-positive rates. Such false positives are potentially harmful, because they lead to “unnecessary secondary evaluations or treatments.” Because pharmacologic management of pediatric hypertension is continued for a much longer period, it is the increased likelihood of adverse events that should be cause for concern.
 

Should the focus for screening be shifted to significant risk factors?

In an accompanying editorial, Joseph T. Flynn, MD, MS, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, said that the outcome of the latest statement is expected, “given how the key questions were framed and the analysis performed.” To begin, he suggested restating the question: “What is the best approach to assess whether childhood BP measurement is associated with adult CVD or whether treatment of high BP in childhood is associated with reducing the burden of adult CVD?” The answer is to tackle these questions with randomized clinical trials that compare screening to no screening and treatment to no treatment. But such studies are likely infeasible, partly because of the required length of follow-up of 5-6 decades.

Perhaps a better question would be: “Does BP measurement in childhood identify children and adolescents who already have markers of CVD or who are at risk of developing them as adults?” Were these youth to be identified, they would become candidates for approaches that seek to prevent disease progression. Reframing the question in this manner better positions physicians to focus on prevention and sidestep “the requirement that the only acceptable outcome is prevention of CVD events in adulthood,” he explained.

The next step would be to identify data already available to address the reframed question. Cross-sectional studies could be used to make the association between BP levels and cardiovascular risk markers already present. For example, several publications from the multicenter Study of High Blood Pressure in Pediatrics: Adult Hypertension Onset in Youth (SHIP-AHOY), which enrolled roughly 400 youth, provided data that reinforce prior single-center studies that essentially proved there are adverse consequences for youth with high BP, and they “set the stage for the institution of measures designed to reverse target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular risk in youth,” said Dr. Flynn.

More specifically, results from SHIP-AHOY “have demonstrated that increased left ventricular mass can be demonstrated at BP levels currently classified as normotensive and that abnormal left ventricular function can be seen at similar BP levels,” Dr. Flynn noted. In addition, “they have established a substantial association between an abnormal metabolic phenotype and several forms of target-organ damage associated with high BP.”
 

One approach is to analyze longitudinal cohort studies

Because there is a paucity of prospective clinical trials, Dr. Flynn suggested that analyzing longitudinal cohort studies would be the most effective approach for evaluating the potential link between current BP levels and future CVD. Such studies already have “data that address an important point raised in the USPSTF statement, namely whether the pediatric percentile-based BP cut points, such as those in the 2017 AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guideline, are associated with adult hypertension and CVD,” noted Dr. Flynn. “In the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium study, the specific childhood BP levels that were associated with increased adult carotid intima-medial thickness were remarkably similar to the BP percentile cut points in the AAP guideline for children of similar ages.”

Analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study found looking at children classified as having high BP by the 2017 AAP guideline had “increased relative risks of having hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or metabolic syndrome as adults 36 years later.”

“The conclusions of the USPSTF statement underscore the need for additional research on childhood high BP and its association with adult CVD. The starting points for such research can be deduced from currently available cross-sectional and longitudinal data, which demonstrate the detrimental outcomes associated with high BP in youth. Using these data to reframe and answer the questions raised by the USPSTF should point the way toward effective prevention of adult CVD,” concluded Dr. Flynn.

In a separate interview, Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, medical director of the preventive cardiology clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, noted that in spite of USPSTF’s findings, there is actually an association between children with high blood pressure and intermediate outcomes in adults.

“Dr. Flynn suggests reframing the question. In fact, evidence exists that children with high blood pressure are at higher risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, increased arterial stiffness, and changes in retinal arteries,” noted Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
 

Evidence of pediatric heart damage has been documented in autopsies

“It is imperative that children have blood pressure evaluation,” she urged. “There is evidence that there are changes similar to those seen in adults with cardiovascular compromise. It has been shown that children dying of other causes [accidents] who have these problems also have more plaque on autopsy, indicating that those with high blood pressure are more likely to have markers of CVD already present in childhood.

“One of the keys of pediatric medicine is prevention and the counseling for prevention of adult diseases. The duration of study necessary to objectively determine whether treatment of hypertension in childhood reduces the risk of adult cardiac problems is extensive. If nothing is done now, we are putting more future generations in danger. We must provide appropriate counseling for children and their families regarding lifestyle improvements, to have a chance to improve cardiovascular risk factors in adults, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or obesity,” urged Dr. Sexson Tejtel.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and honoraria. Dr. Barry received grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Flynn reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate and Springer outside the submitted work. Dr. Sexson Tejtel said she had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: USPSTF. JAMA. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.20122.

Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported in JAMA.

©Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

However, two experts in this area suggested there is evidence if you know where to look, and pediatric BP testing is crucial now.

In this update to the 2013 statement, the USPSTF’s systematic review focused on evidence surrounding the benefits of screening, test accuracy, treatment effectiveness and harms, and links between hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) markers in childhood and adulthood.

Limited information was available on the accuracy of screening tests. No studies were found that directly evaluated screening for pediatric high BP or reported effectiveness in delayed onset or risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes related to hypertension. Additionally, no studies were found that addressed screening for secondary hypertension in asymptomatic pediatric patients. No studies were found that evaluated the treatment of primary childhood hypertension and BP reduction or other outcomes in adulthood. The panel also was unable to identify any studies that reported on harms of screening and treatment.

When the adult framework for cardiovascular risk reduction is extended in pediatric patients, there are methodological challenges that make it harder to determine how much of the potential burden can actually be prevented, the panel said. The clinical and epidemiologic significance of percentile thresholds that are used to determine their ties to adult CVD has limited supporting evidence. Inconsistent performance characteristics of current diagnostic methods, of which there are few, tend to yield unfavorable high false-positive rates. Such false positives are potentially harmful, because they lead to “unnecessary secondary evaluations or treatments.” Because pharmacologic management of pediatric hypertension is continued for a much longer period, it is the increased likelihood of adverse events that should be cause for concern.
 

Should the focus for screening be shifted to significant risk factors?

In an accompanying editorial, Joseph T. Flynn, MD, MS, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, said that the outcome of the latest statement is expected, “given how the key questions were framed and the analysis performed.” To begin, he suggested restating the question: “What is the best approach to assess whether childhood BP measurement is associated with adult CVD or whether treatment of high BP in childhood is associated with reducing the burden of adult CVD?” The answer is to tackle these questions with randomized clinical trials that compare screening to no screening and treatment to no treatment. But such studies are likely infeasible, partly because of the required length of follow-up of 5-6 decades.

Perhaps a better question would be: “Does BP measurement in childhood identify children and adolescents who already have markers of CVD or who are at risk of developing them as adults?” Were these youth to be identified, they would become candidates for approaches that seek to prevent disease progression. Reframing the question in this manner better positions physicians to focus on prevention and sidestep “the requirement that the only acceptable outcome is prevention of CVD events in adulthood,” he explained.

The next step would be to identify data already available to address the reframed question. Cross-sectional studies could be used to make the association between BP levels and cardiovascular risk markers already present. For example, several publications from the multicenter Study of High Blood Pressure in Pediatrics: Adult Hypertension Onset in Youth (SHIP-AHOY), which enrolled roughly 400 youth, provided data that reinforce prior single-center studies that essentially proved there are adverse consequences for youth with high BP, and they “set the stage for the institution of measures designed to reverse target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular risk in youth,” said Dr. Flynn.

More specifically, results from SHIP-AHOY “have demonstrated that increased left ventricular mass can be demonstrated at BP levels currently classified as normotensive and that abnormal left ventricular function can be seen at similar BP levels,” Dr. Flynn noted. In addition, “they have established a substantial association between an abnormal metabolic phenotype and several forms of target-organ damage associated with high BP.”
 

One approach is to analyze longitudinal cohort studies

Because there is a paucity of prospective clinical trials, Dr. Flynn suggested that analyzing longitudinal cohort studies would be the most effective approach for evaluating the potential link between current BP levels and future CVD. Such studies already have “data that address an important point raised in the USPSTF statement, namely whether the pediatric percentile-based BP cut points, such as those in the 2017 AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guideline, are associated with adult hypertension and CVD,” noted Dr. Flynn. “In the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium study, the specific childhood BP levels that were associated with increased adult carotid intima-medial thickness were remarkably similar to the BP percentile cut points in the AAP guideline for children of similar ages.”

Analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study found looking at children classified as having high BP by the 2017 AAP guideline had “increased relative risks of having hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or metabolic syndrome as adults 36 years later.”

“The conclusions of the USPSTF statement underscore the need for additional research on childhood high BP and its association with adult CVD. The starting points for such research can be deduced from currently available cross-sectional and longitudinal data, which demonstrate the detrimental outcomes associated with high BP in youth. Using these data to reframe and answer the questions raised by the USPSTF should point the way toward effective prevention of adult CVD,” concluded Dr. Flynn.

In a separate interview, Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, medical director of the preventive cardiology clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, noted that in spite of USPSTF’s findings, there is actually an association between children with high blood pressure and intermediate outcomes in adults.

“Dr. Flynn suggests reframing the question. In fact, evidence exists that children with high blood pressure are at higher risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, increased arterial stiffness, and changes in retinal arteries,” noted Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
 

Evidence of pediatric heart damage has been documented in autopsies

“It is imperative that children have blood pressure evaluation,” she urged. “There is evidence that there are changes similar to those seen in adults with cardiovascular compromise. It has been shown that children dying of other causes [accidents] who have these problems also have more plaque on autopsy, indicating that those with high blood pressure are more likely to have markers of CVD already present in childhood.

“One of the keys of pediatric medicine is prevention and the counseling for prevention of adult diseases. The duration of study necessary to objectively determine whether treatment of hypertension in childhood reduces the risk of adult cardiac problems is extensive. If nothing is done now, we are putting more future generations in danger. We must provide appropriate counseling for children and their families regarding lifestyle improvements, to have a chance to improve cardiovascular risk factors in adults, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or obesity,” urged Dr. Sexson Tejtel.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and honoraria. Dr. Barry received grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Flynn reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate and Springer outside the submitted work. Dr. Sexson Tejtel said she had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: USPSTF. JAMA. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.20122.

Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported in JAMA.

©Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

However, two experts in this area suggested there is evidence if you know where to look, and pediatric BP testing is crucial now.

In this update to the 2013 statement, the USPSTF’s systematic review focused on evidence surrounding the benefits of screening, test accuracy, treatment effectiveness and harms, and links between hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) markers in childhood and adulthood.

Limited information was available on the accuracy of screening tests. No studies were found that directly evaluated screening for pediatric high BP or reported effectiveness in delayed onset or risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes related to hypertension. Additionally, no studies were found that addressed screening for secondary hypertension in asymptomatic pediatric patients. No studies were found that evaluated the treatment of primary childhood hypertension and BP reduction or other outcomes in adulthood. The panel also was unable to identify any studies that reported on harms of screening and treatment.

When the adult framework for cardiovascular risk reduction is extended in pediatric patients, there are methodological challenges that make it harder to determine how much of the potential burden can actually be prevented, the panel said. The clinical and epidemiologic significance of percentile thresholds that are used to determine their ties to adult CVD has limited supporting evidence. Inconsistent performance characteristics of current diagnostic methods, of which there are few, tend to yield unfavorable high false-positive rates. Such false positives are potentially harmful, because they lead to “unnecessary secondary evaluations or treatments.” Because pharmacologic management of pediatric hypertension is continued for a much longer period, it is the increased likelihood of adverse events that should be cause for concern.
 

Should the focus for screening be shifted to significant risk factors?

In an accompanying editorial, Joseph T. Flynn, MD, MS, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, said that the outcome of the latest statement is expected, “given how the key questions were framed and the analysis performed.” To begin, he suggested restating the question: “What is the best approach to assess whether childhood BP measurement is associated with adult CVD or whether treatment of high BP in childhood is associated with reducing the burden of adult CVD?” The answer is to tackle these questions with randomized clinical trials that compare screening to no screening and treatment to no treatment. But such studies are likely infeasible, partly because of the required length of follow-up of 5-6 decades.

Perhaps a better question would be: “Does BP measurement in childhood identify children and adolescents who already have markers of CVD or who are at risk of developing them as adults?” Were these youth to be identified, they would become candidates for approaches that seek to prevent disease progression. Reframing the question in this manner better positions physicians to focus on prevention and sidestep “the requirement that the only acceptable outcome is prevention of CVD events in adulthood,” he explained.

The next step would be to identify data already available to address the reframed question. Cross-sectional studies could be used to make the association between BP levels and cardiovascular risk markers already present. For example, several publications from the multicenter Study of High Blood Pressure in Pediatrics: Adult Hypertension Onset in Youth (SHIP-AHOY), which enrolled roughly 400 youth, provided data that reinforce prior single-center studies that essentially proved there are adverse consequences for youth with high BP, and they “set the stage for the institution of measures designed to reverse target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular risk in youth,” said Dr. Flynn.

More specifically, results from SHIP-AHOY “have demonstrated that increased left ventricular mass can be demonstrated at BP levels currently classified as normotensive and that abnormal left ventricular function can be seen at similar BP levels,” Dr. Flynn noted. In addition, “they have established a substantial association between an abnormal metabolic phenotype and several forms of target-organ damage associated with high BP.”
 

One approach is to analyze longitudinal cohort studies

Because there is a paucity of prospective clinical trials, Dr. Flynn suggested that analyzing longitudinal cohort studies would be the most effective approach for evaluating the potential link between current BP levels and future CVD. Such studies already have “data that address an important point raised in the USPSTF statement, namely whether the pediatric percentile-based BP cut points, such as those in the 2017 AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guideline, are associated with adult hypertension and CVD,” noted Dr. Flynn. “In the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium study, the specific childhood BP levels that were associated with increased adult carotid intima-medial thickness were remarkably similar to the BP percentile cut points in the AAP guideline for children of similar ages.”

Analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study found looking at children classified as having high BP by the 2017 AAP guideline had “increased relative risks of having hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or metabolic syndrome as adults 36 years later.”

“The conclusions of the USPSTF statement underscore the need for additional research on childhood high BP and its association with adult CVD. The starting points for such research can be deduced from currently available cross-sectional and longitudinal data, which demonstrate the detrimental outcomes associated with high BP in youth. Using these data to reframe and answer the questions raised by the USPSTF should point the way toward effective prevention of adult CVD,” concluded Dr. Flynn.

In a separate interview, Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, medical director of the preventive cardiology clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, noted that in spite of USPSTF’s findings, there is actually an association between children with high blood pressure and intermediate outcomes in adults.

“Dr. Flynn suggests reframing the question. In fact, evidence exists that children with high blood pressure are at higher risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, increased arterial stiffness, and changes in retinal arteries,” noted Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
 

Evidence of pediatric heart damage has been documented in autopsies

“It is imperative that children have blood pressure evaluation,” she urged. “There is evidence that there are changes similar to those seen in adults with cardiovascular compromise. It has been shown that children dying of other causes [accidents] who have these problems also have more plaque on autopsy, indicating that those with high blood pressure are more likely to have markers of CVD already present in childhood.

“One of the keys of pediatric medicine is prevention and the counseling for prevention of adult diseases. The duration of study necessary to objectively determine whether treatment of hypertension in childhood reduces the risk of adult cardiac problems is extensive. If nothing is done now, we are putting more future generations in danger. We must provide appropriate counseling for children and their families regarding lifestyle improvements, to have a chance to improve cardiovascular risk factors in adults, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or obesity,” urged Dr. Sexson Tejtel.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and honoraria. Dr. Barry received grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Flynn reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate and Springer outside the submitted work. Dr. Sexson Tejtel said she had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: USPSTF. JAMA. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.20122.