Cardiology News

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new report recommends the surgical closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in high-risk divers, but physicians in the United States urged caution about widespread use of the procedure in this population.

“PFO closure is recommended in divers with a high-grade PFO, with a history of unprovoked decompression sickness [DCS], or at the diver’s preference. Besides protection from DCS, PFO closure also offers the diver life-long protection from PFO-associated stroke,” write the authors of an analysis of the DIVE-PFO Registry.

The investigators, led by Jakub Honêk, MD, PhD, of Motol University Hospital in Prague, based that advice on results of their analysis, which compared two groups of divers with high-grade PFO: 55 who underwent catheter-based PFO closure, and 98 who were urged to dive cautiously.

Over a mean of about 7 years, the divers who underwent catheter-based PFO closure had no unprovoked decompression sickness (DCS), while the condition occurred in 11% of those who hadn’t had the procedure, according to the report, a research letter published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.Decompression sickness, also known as the bends, can occur as gas bubbles pass through the circulatory system as divers ascend. In divers with PFO, which affects about 25% of the population, the bubbles can bypass filtration in the lungs and cause strokes, said neurologist David Thaler, MD, PhD, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

PFO closure via surgery is one option for divers with PFO, but there’s debate over whether the procedure should be widespread. For the new research letter, researchers prospectively tracked 748 divers in the DIVE-PFO (Decompression Illness Prevention in Divers with a Patent Foramen Ovale) registry during 2006-2018. Twenty-two percent had high-grade PFO.

In divers with PFO of grade 3 or above, procedures were performed if patients had a history of DCS or if they couldn’t adapt to conservative diving recommendations. The researchers said this population included commercial divers.

The groups that did or didn’t undergo surgery were similar in age (40.0 and 37.3 years, respectively, P = 0.079), and sex (78.2% and 79.6% male, respectively, P = 0.893), but differed in number of new dives (30,684 vs. 25,328, respectively, P < 0.001,), ). They were tracked for a mean of 7.1 years and 6.5 years, respectively.

It’s not clear whether the divers who underwent the closure procedure had fewer DCSs because they were more cautious about dive safety than the other diver group. The research letter doesn’t mention whether strokes occurred in divers in the two groups.

The study authors write that the results are consistent with previous findings that “PFO closure eliminates arterial gas emboli, “PFO is a major risk factor for unprovoked DCS,” and “PFO closure is a safe procedure with a very low complication rate.”

In interviews, physicians who are familiar with diver safety questioned the value of the findings and said medical professionals shouldn’t change practice.
 

Not so fast, experts say

Dr. Thaler, the Tufts Medical Center neurologist, questioned why the report explored a link between PFO and DCS. Overall, he said, the findings are too incomplete to inform practice. Anesthesiologist Richard Moon, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., also questioned the study’s examination of DCS. “Most DCS cases are uncorrelated with PFO. It is only serious cases, a minority, that could conceivably be related to PFO, and even then, many serious cases that occur in divers with PFO are unrelated to it.” He added that “numerous divers with mild DCS ... have been mistakenly evaluated for PFO. Such practice is unsubstantiated by data.”

Should more closures be performed in this population? “I would be hesitant to make the recommended closures in divers,” said cardiologist David C. Peritz, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H. “There are probably other ways that you can decrease your chances of getting decompression illness and make your dives more safe.”

Cardiologist Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said the closure procedure is “relatively safe” when performed by experienced surgeons. He noted that it is “only approved to prevent recurrent ischemic stroke in patients predominantly between the ages of 18 and 60 years who have experienced a cortical stroke presumed to be of embolic nature and for which no obvious cause can be found.”

As for high-risk divers, he said PFO closures “can be considered, but the data as yet are not strong enough to strongly recommend it.”

The Czech Republic’s Ministry of Health funded the study. The authors report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Thaler, Dr. Kavinsky, Dr. Moon and Dr. Peritz report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Honěk J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 1;76(9):1149-50.

A new report recommends the surgical closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in high-risk divers, but physicians in the United States urged caution about widespread use of the procedure in this population.

“PFO closure is recommended in divers with a high-grade PFO, with a history of unprovoked decompression sickness [DCS], or at the diver’s preference. Besides protection from DCS, PFO closure also offers the diver life-long protection from PFO-associated stroke,” write the authors of an analysis of the DIVE-PFO Registry.

The investigators, led by Jakub Honêk, MD, PhD, of Motol University Hospital in Prague, based that advice on results of their analysis, which compared two groups of divers with high-grade PFO: 55 who underwent catheter-based PFO closure, and 98 who were urged to dive cautiously.

Over a mean of about 7 years, the divers who underwent catheter-based PFO closure had no unprovoked decompression sickness (DCS), while the condition occurred in 11% of those who hadn’t had the procedure, according to the report, a research letter published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.Decompression sickness, also known as the bends, can occur as gas bubbles pass through the circulatory system as divers ascend. In divers with PFO, which affects about 25% of the population, the bubbles can bypass filtration in the lungs and cause strokes, said neurologist David Thaler, MD, PhD, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

PFO closure via surgery is one option for divers with PFO, but there’s debate over whether the procedure should be widespread. For the new research letter, researchers prospectively tracked 748 divers in the DIVE-PFO (Decompression Illness Prevention in Divers with a Patent Foramen Ovale) registry during 2006-2018. Twenty-two percent had high-grade PFO.

In divers with PFO of grade 3 or above, procedures were performed if patients had a history of DCS or if they couldn’t adapt to conservative diving recommendations. The researchers said this population included commercial divers.

The groups that did or didn’t undergo surgery were similar in age (40.0 and 37.3 years, respectively, P = 0.079), and sex (78.2% and 79.6% male, respectively, P = 0.893), but differed in number of new dives (30,684 vs. 25,328, respectively, P < 0.001,), ). They were tracked for a mean of 7.1 years and 6.5 years, respectively.

It’s not clear whether the divers who underwent the closure procedure had fewer DCSs because they were more cautious about dive safety than the other diver group. The research letter doesn’t mention whether strokes occurred in divers in the two groups.

The study authors write that the results are consistent with previous findings that “PFO closure eliminates arterial gas emboli, “PFO is a major risk factor for unprovoked DCS,” and “PFO closure is a safe procedure with a very low complication rate.”

In interviews, physicians who are familiar with diver safety questioned the value of the findings and said medical professionals shouldn’t change practice.
 

Not so fast, experts say

Dr. Thaler, the Tufts Medical Center neurologist, questioned why the report explored a link between PFO and DCS. Overall, he said, the findings are too incomplete to inform practice. Anesthesiologist Richard Moon, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., also questioned the study’s examination of DCS. “Most DCS cases are uncorrelated with PFO. It is only serious cases, a minority, that could conceivably be related to PFO, and even then, many serious cases that occur in divers with PFO are unrelated to it.” He added that “numerous divers with mild DCS ... have been mistakenly evaluated for PFO. Such practice is unsubstantiated by data.”

Should more closures be performed in this population? “I would be hesitant to make the recommended closures in divers,” said cardiologist David C. Peritz, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H. “There are probably other ways that you can decrease your chances of getting decompression illness and make your dives more safe.”

Cardiologist Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said the closure procedure is “relatively safe” when performed by experienced surgeons. He noted that it is “only approved to prevent recurrent ischemic stroke in patients predominantly between the ages of 18 and 60 years who have experienced a cortical stroke presumed to be of embolic nature and for which no obvious cause can be found.”

As for high-risk divers, he said PFO closures “can be considered, but the data as yet are not strong enough to strongly recommend it.”

The Czech Republic’s Ministry of Health funded the study. The authors report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Thaler, Dr. Kavinsky, Dr. Moon and Dr. Peritz report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Honěk J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 1;76(9):1149-50.

A new report recommends the surgical closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in high-risk divers, but physicians in the United States urged caution about widespread use of the procedure in this population.

“PFO closure is recommended in divers with a high-grade PFO, with a history of unprovoked decompression sickness [DCS], or at the diver’s preference. Besides protection from DCS, PFO closure also offers the diver life-long protection from PFO-associated stroke,” write the authors of an analysis of the DIVE-PFO Registry.

The investigators, led by Jakub Honêk, MD, PhD, of Motol University Hospital in Prague, based that advice on results of their analysis, which compared two groups of divers with high-grade PFO: 55 who underwent catheter-based PFO closure, and 98 who were urged to dive cautiously.

Over a mean of about 7 years, the divers who underwent catheter-based PFO closure had no unprovoked decompression sickness (DCS), while the condition occurred in 11% of those who hadn’t had the procedure, according to the report, a research letter published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.Decompression sickness, also known as the bends, can occur as gas bubbles pass through the circulatory system as divers ascend. In divers with PFO, which affects about 25% of the population, the bubbles can bypass filtration in the lungs and cause strokes, said neurologist David Thaler, MD, PhD, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

PFO closure via surgery is one option for divers with PFO, but there’s debate over whether the procedure should be widespread. For the new research letter, researchers prospectively tracked 748 divers in the DIVE-PFO (Decompression Illness Prevention in Divers with a Patent Foramen Ovale) registry during 2006-2018. Twenty-two percent had high-grade PFO.

In divers with PFO of grade 3 or above, procedures were performed if patients had a history of DCS or if they couldn’t adapt to conservative diving recommendations. The researchers said this population included commercial divers.

The groups that did or didn’t undergo surgery were similar in age (40.0 and 37.3 years, respectively, P = 0.079), and sex (78.2% and 79.6% male, respectively, P = 0.893), but differed in number of new dives (30,684 vs. 25,328, respectively, P < 0.001,), ). They were tracked for a mean of 7.1 years and 6.5 years, respectively.

It’s not clear whether the divers who underwent the closure procedure had fewer DCSs because they were more cautious about dive safety than the other diver group. The research letter doesn’t mention whether strokes occurred in divers in the two groups.

The study authors write that the results are consistent with previous findings that “PFO closure eliminates arterial gas emboli, “PFO is a major risk factor for unprovoked DCS,” and “PFO closure is a safe procedure with a very low complication rate.”

In interviews, physicians who are familiar with diver safety questioned the value of the findings and said medical professionals shouldn’t change practice.
 

Not so fast, experts say

Dr. Thaler, the Tufts Medical Center neurologist, questioned why the report explored a link between PFO and DCS. Overall, he said, the findings are too incomplete to inform practice. Anesthesiologist Richard Moon, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., also questioned the study’s examination of DCS. “Most DCS cases are uncorrelated with PFO. It is only serious cases, a minority, that could conceivably be related to PFO, and even then, many serious cases that occur in divers with PFO are unrelated to it.” He added that “numerous divers with mild DCS ... have been mistakenly evaluated for PFO. Such practice is unsubstantiated by data.”

Should more closures be performed in this population? “I would be hesitant to make the recommended closures in divers,” said cardiologist David C. Peritz, MD, of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H. “There are probably other ways that you can decrease your chances of getting decompression illness and make your dives more safe.”

Cardiologist Clifford J. Kavinsky, MD, PhD, of Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said the closure procedure is “relatively safe” when performed by experienced surgeons. He noted that it is “only approved to prevent recurrent ischemic stroke in patients predominantly between the ages of 18 and 60 years who have experienced a cortical stroke presumed to be of embolic nature and for which no obvious cause can be found.”

As for high-risk divers, he said PFO closures “can be considered, but the data as yet are not strong enough to strongly recommend it.”

The Czech Republic’s Ministry of Health funded the study. The authors report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Thaler, Dr. Kavinsky, Dr. Moon and Dr. Peritz report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Honěk J et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 1;76(9):1149-50.

As communities wrestle with the decision to send children back to school or opt for distance learning, a key question is how many children are likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Researchers have now found that the prevalence of asymptomatic infections in children correlates with the overall incidence of COVID-19 in the local population, according to an analysis of data from 28 U.S. children’s hospitals.

Courtesy NIAID

“The strong association between prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children who are asymptomatic and contemporaneous weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population ... provides a simple means for institutions to estimate local pediatric asymptomatic prevalence from the publicly available Johns Hopkins University database,” researchers say in an article published online August 25 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Ana Marija Sola, BS, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 33,041 children who underwent routine testing in April and May when hospitals resumed elective medical and surgical care. The hospitals performed reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA before surgery, clinic visits, or hospital admissions. Pediatric otolaryngologists reported the prevalence data through May 29 as part of a quality improvement project.

In all, 250 patients tested positive for the virus, for an overall prevalence of 0.65%. Across 25 geographic areas, the prevalence ranged from 0% to 2.2%. By region, prevalence was highest in the Northeast, at 0.90%, and the Midwest, at 0.87%; prevalence was lower in the West, at 0.59%, and the South, at 0.52%.

To get a sense of how those rates compared with overall rates in the same geographic areas, the researchers used the Johns Hopkins University confirmed cases database to calculate the average weekly incidence of COVID-19 for the entire population for each geographic area.

“Asymptomatic pediatric prevalence was significantly associated with weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population during the 6-week period over which most testing of individuals without symptoms occurred,” Ms. Sola and colleagues reported. An analysis using additional data from 11 geographic areas demonstrated that this association persisted at a later time point.

The study provides “another window on the question of how likely is it that an asymptomatic child will be carrying coronavirus,” said Susan E. Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician for the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. However, important related questions remain, said Dr. Coffin, who was not involved with the study.

For one, it is unclear how many children remain asymptomatic in comparison with those who were in a presymptomatic phase at the time of testing. And importantly, “what proportion of these children are infectious?” said Dr. Coffin. “There is some data to suggest that children with asymptomatic infection may be less infectious than children with symptomatic infection.”

It also could be that patients seen at children’s hospitals differ from the general pediatric population. “What does this look like if you do the exact same study in a group of randomly selected children, not children who are queueing up to have a procedure? ... And what do these numbers look like now that stay-at-home orders have been lifted?” Dr. Coffin asked.

Further studies are needed to establish that detection of COVID-19 in the general population is predictive of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic children, Dr. Coffin said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As communities wrestle with the decision to send children back to school or opt for distance learning, a key question is how many children are likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Researchers have now found that the prevalence of asymptomatic infections in children correlates with the overall incidence of COVID-19 in the local population, according to an analysis of data from 28 U.S. children’s hospitals.

Courtesy NIAID

“The strong association between prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children who are asymptomatic and contemporaneous weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population ... provides a simple means for institutions to estimate local pediatric asymptomatic prevalence from the publicly available Johns Hopkins University database,” researchers say in an article published online August 25 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Ana Marija Sola, BS, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 33,041 children who underwent routine testing in April and May when hospitals resumed elective medical and surgical care. The hospitals performed reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA before surgery, clinic visits, or hospital admissions. Pediatric otolaryngologists reported the prevalence data through May 29 as part of a quality improvement project.

In all, 250 patients tested positive for the virus, for an overall prevalence of 0.65%. Across 25 geographic areas, the prevalence ranged from 0% to 2.2%. By region, prevalence was highest in the Northeast, at 0.90%, and the Midwest, at 0.87%; prevalence was lower in the West, at 0.59%, and the South, at 0.52%.

To get a sense of how those rates compared with overall rates in the same geographic areas, the researchers used the Johns Hopkins University confirmed cases database to calculate the average weekly incidence of COVID-19 for the entire population for each geographic area.

“Asymptomatic pediatric prevalence was significantly associated with weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population during the 6-week period over which most testing of individuals without symptoms occurred,” Ms. Sola and colleagues reported. An analysis using additional data from 11 geographic areas demonstrated that this association persisted at a later time point.

The study provides “another window on the question of how likely is it that an asymptomatic child will be carrying coronavirus,” said Susan E. Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician for the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. However, important related questions remain, said Dr. Coffin, who was not involved with the study.

For one, it is unclear how many children remain asymptomatic in comparison with those who were in a presymptomatic phase at the time of testing. And importantly, “what proportion of these children are infectious?” said Dr. Coffin. “There is some data to suggest that children with asymptomatic infection may be less infectious than children with symptomatic infection.”

It also could be that patients seen at children’s hospitals differ from the general pediatric population. “What does this look like if you do the exact same study in a group of randomly selected children, not children who are queueing up to have a procedure? ... And what do these numbers look like now that stay-at-home orders have been lifted?” Dr. Coffin asked.

Further studies are needed to establish that detection of COVID-19 in the general population is predictive of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic children, Dr. Coffin said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As communities wrestle with the decision to send children back to school or opt for distance learning, a key question is how many children are likely to have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Researchers have now found that the prevalence of asymptomatic infections in children correlates with the overall incidence of COVID-19 in the local population, according to an analysis of data from 28 U.S. children’s hospitals.

Courtesy NIAID

“The strong association between prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children who are asymptomatic and contemporaneous weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population ... provides a simple means for institutions to estimate local pediatric asymptomatic prevalence from the publicly available Johns Hopkins University database,” researchers say in an article published online August 25 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Ana Marija Sola, BS, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 33,041 children who underwent routine testing in April and May when hospitals resumed elective medical and surgical care. The hospitals performed reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA before surgery, clinic visits, or hospital admissions. Pediatric otolaryngologists reported the prevalence data through May 29 as part of a quality improvement project.

In all, 250 patients tested positive for the virus, for an overall prevalence of 0.65%. Across 25 geographic areas, the prevalence ranged from 0% to 2.2%. By region, prevalence was highest in the Northeast, at 0.90%, and the Midwest, at 0.87%; prevalence was lower in the West, at 0.59%, and the South, at 0.52%.

To get a sense of how those rates compared with overall rates in the same geographic areas, the researchers used the Johns Hopkins University confirmed cases database to calculate the average weekly incidence of COVID-19 for the entire population for each geographic area.

“Asymptomatic pediatric prevalence was significantly associated with weekly incidence of COVID-19 in the general population during the 6-week period over which most testing of individuals without symptoms occurred,” Ms. Sola and colleagues reported. An analysis using additional data from 11 geographic areas demonstrated that this association persisted at a later time point.

The study provides “another window on the question of how likely is it that an asymptomatic child will be carrying coronavirus,” said Susan E. Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician for the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. However, important related questions remain, said Dr. Coffin, who was not involved with the study.

For one, it is unclear how many children remain asymptomatic in comparison with those who were in a presymptomatic phase at the time of testing. And importantly, “what proportion of these children are infectious?” said Dr. Coffin. “There is some data to suggest that children with asymptomatic infection may be less infectious than children with symptomatic infection.”

It also could be that patients seen at children’s hospitals differ from the general pediatric population. “What does this look like if you do the exact same study in a group of randomly selected children, not children who are queueing up to have a procedure? ... And what do these numbers look like now that stay-at-home orders have been lifted?” Dr. Coffin asked.

Further studies are needed to establish that detection of COVID-19 in the general population is predictive of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic children, Dr. Coffin said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Investigators conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to gauge the utility of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are uncertain how studies will be affected now that the US Food and Drug Administration has given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the therapy.

The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.

In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.

At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.

“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”

But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.

“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”

Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.

When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.

The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
 

Hopeful, but a long way to go

Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.

“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.

Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.

Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.

Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”

But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”

Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.

Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.

The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.

Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to gauge the utility of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are uncertain how studies will be affected now that the US Food and Drug Administration has given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the therapy.

The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.

In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.

At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.

“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”

But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.

“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”

Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.

When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.

The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
 

Hopeful, but a long way to go

Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.

“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.

Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.

Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.

Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”

But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”

Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.

Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.

The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.

Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to gauge the utility of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are uncertain how studies will be affected now that the US Food and Drug Administration has given an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the therapy.

The agency’s move took many investigators by surprise. The EUA was announced at the White House the day after President Donald J. Trump accused the FDA of delaying approval of therapeutics to hurt his re-election chances.

In a memo describing the decision, the FDA cited data from some controlled and uncontrolled studies and, primarily, data from an open-label expanded-access protocol overseen by the Mayo Clinic.

At the White House, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 who were treated. That figure was later found to have been erroneous, and many experts pointed out that Hahn had conflated an absolute risk reduction with a relative reduction. After a firestorm of criticism, Hahn issued an apology.

“The criticism is entirely justified,” he tweeted. “What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.”

About 15 randomized controlled trials – out of 54 total studies involving convalescent plasma – are underway in the United States, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. The FDA’s Aug. 23 emergency authorization gave clinicians wide leeway to employ convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The agency noted, however, that “adequate and well-controlled randomized trials remain necessary for a definitive demonstration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma efficacy and to determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for its use.”

But it’s not clear that people with COVID-19, especially those who are severely ill and hospitalized, will choose to enlist in a clinical trial – where they could receive a placebo – when they instead could get plasma.

“I’ve been asked repeatedly whether the EUA will affect our ability to recruit people into our hospitalized patient trial,” said Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, FIDSA, chief of the department of medicine, infectious diseases division at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. “I do not know,” she said, on a call with reporters organized by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“But,” she said, “I do know that the trial will continue and that we will discuss the evidence that we have with our patients and give them all that we can to help them weigh the evidence and make up their minds.”

Pirofski said the study being conducted at Montefiore and four other sites has since late April enrolled 190 patients out of a hoped-for 300.

When the study – which compares convalescent plasma to saline in hospitalized patients – was first designed, “there was not any funding for our trial and honestly not a whole lot of interest,” Pirofski told reporters. Individual donors helped support the initial rollout in late April and the trial quickly enrolled 150 patients as the pandemic peaked in the New York City area.

The National Institutes of Health has since given funding, which allowed the study to expand to New York University, Yale University, the University of Miami, and the University of Texas at Houston.
 

Hopeful, but a long way to go

Shmuel Shoham, MD, FIDSA, associate director of the transplant and oncology infectious diseases center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that he’s hopeful that people will continue to enroll in his trial, which is seeking to determine if plasma can prevent COVID-19 in those who’ve been recently exposed.

“Volunteers joining the study is the only way that we’re going to get to know whether this stuff works for prevention and treatment,” Shoham said on the call. He urged physicians and other healthcare workers to talk with patients about considering trial participation.

Shoham’s study is being conducted at 30 US sites and one at the Navajo Nation. It has enrolled 25 out of a hoped-for 500 participants. “We have a long way to go,” said Shoham.

Another Hopkins study to determine whether plasma is helpful in shortening illness in nonhospitalized patients, which is being conducted at the same 31 sites, has enrolled 50 out of 600.

Shoham said recruiting patients with COVID for any study had proven to be difficult. “The vast majority of people that have coronavirus do not come to centers that do clinical trials or interventional trials,” he said, adding that, in addition, most of those “who have coronavirus don’t want to be in a trial. They just want to have coronavirus and get it over with.”

But it’s important to understand how to conduct trials in a pandemic – in part to get answers quickly, he said. Researchers have been looking at convalescent plasma for months, said Shoham. “Why don’t we have the randomized clinical trial data that we want?”

Pirofski noted that trials have also been hobbled in part by “the shifting areas of the pandemic.” Fewer cases make for fewer potential plasma donors.

Both Shoham and Pirofski also said that more needed to be done to encourage plasma donors to participate.

The US Department of Health & Human Services clarified in August that hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other health care workers could contact individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 without violating the HIPAA privacy rule.

Pirofski said she believes that trial investigators know it is legal to reach out to patients. But, she said, “it probably could be better known.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.

“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.

In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.

Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.

All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.

Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.

After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.

At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).

For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
 

Interpreting the findings

A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.

“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”

In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.

In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.

Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.

“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”

A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.

“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.

Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.

According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.

When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.

SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.

The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.

“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.

In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.

Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.

All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.

Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.

After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.

At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).

For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
 

Interpreting the findings

A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.

“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”

In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.

In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.

Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.

“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”

A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.

“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.

Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.

According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.

When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.

SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.

The risk of depression is elevated in patients with cardiovascular diseases, but several specific antihypertensive therapies are associated with a reduced risk, and none appear to increase the risk, according to a population-based study that evaluated 10 years of data in nearly 4 million subjects.

“As the first study on individual antihypertensives and risk of depression, we found a decreased risk of depression with nine drugs,” reported a collaborative group of investigators from multiple institutions in Denmark where the study was undertaken.

In a study period spanning from 2005 to 2015, risk of a diagnosis of depression was evaluated in patients taking any of 41 antihypertensive therapies in four major categories. These were identified as angiotensin agents (ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers), calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, and diuretics.

Within these groups, agents associated with a reduced risk of depression were: two angiotensin agents, enalapril and ramipril; three calcium antagonists, amlodipine, verapamil, and verapamil combinations; and four beta-blockers, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and carvedilol. The remaining drugs in these classes and diuretics were not associated with a reduced risk of depression. However, no antihypertensive agent was linked to an increased risk of depression.

All people living in Denmark are assigned a unique personal identification number that permits health information to be tracked across multiple registers. In this study, information was linked for several registries, including the Danish Medical Register on Vital Statistics, the Medicinal Product Statistics, and the Danish Psychiatric Central Register.

Data from a total of 3.75 million patients exposed to antihypertensive therapy during the study period were evaluated. Roughly 1 million of them were exposed to angiotensin drugs and slightly more than a million were exposed to diuretics. For calcium antagonists or beta-blockers, the numbers were approximately 835,000 and 775,000, respectively.

After adjustment for such factors as concomitant somatic diagnoses, sex, age, and employment status, the hazard ratios for depression among drugs associated with protection identified a risk reduction of 10%-25% in most cases when those who had been given 6-10 prescriptions or more than 10 prescriptions were compared with those who received 2 or fewer.

At the level of 10 or more prescriptions, for example, the risk reductions were 17% for ramipril (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), 8% for enalapril (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 18% for amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86), 15% for verapamil (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), 28% for propranolol (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), 20% for atenolol (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.86), 25% for bisoprolol (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and 16% for carvedilol (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95).

For verapamil combinations, the risk reduction was 67% (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63), but the investigators cautioned that only 130 individuals were exposed to verapamil combinations, limiting the reliability of this analysis.
 

Interpreting the findings

A study hypothesis, the observed protective effect against depression, was expected for angiotensin drugs and calcium-channel blockers, but not for beta-blockers, according to the investigators.

“The renin-angiotensin systems is one of the pathways known to modulate inflammation in the central nervous system and seems involved in the regulation of the stress response. Angiotensin agents may also exert anti-inflammatory effects,” the investigators explained. “Dysregulation of intracellular calcium is evident in depression, including receptor-regulated calcium signaling.”

In contrast, beta-blockers have been associated with increased risk of depression in some but not all studies, according to the investigators. They maintained that some clinicians avoid these agents in patients with a history of mood disorders.

In attempting to account for the variability within drug classes regarding protection and lack of protection against depression, the investigators speculated that differences in pharmacologic properties, such as relative lipophilicity or anti-inflammatory effect, might be important.

Despite the large amount of data, William B. White, MD, professor emeritus at the Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut, Farmington, is not convinced.

“In observational studies, even those with very large samples sizes, bias and confounding are hard to extricate with controls and propensity-score matching,” Dr. White said. From his perspective, the protective effects of some but not all drugs within a class “give one the impression that the findings are likely random.”

A member of the editorial board of the journal in which this study appeared, Dr. White said he was not involved in the review of the manuscript. Ultimately, he believed that the results are difficult to interpret.

“For example, there is no plausible rationale for why 2 of the 16 ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers or 4 of the 15 beta-blockers or 3 of the 10 calcium-channel blockers would reduce depression while the others in the class would have no effect,” he said.

Despite the investigators’ conclusion that these data should drive drug choice for patients at risk of depression, “I would say the results of this analysis would not lead me to alter clinical practice,” Dr. White added.

According to the principal investigator of the study, Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DSc, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen, many variables affect choice of antihypertensive drug. However, the depression risk is elevated in patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and hypertension.

When risk of a mood disorder is a concern, use of one of the nine drugs associated with protection from depression should be considered, “especially in patients at increased risk of developing depression, including patients with prior depression or anxiety and patients with a family history of depression,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

However, Dr. Kessing said in an interview that the data do not help with individual treatment choices. “We do not compare different antihypertensives against each other due to the risk of confounding by indications, so, no, it is not reasonable to consider relative risk among specific agents.”

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest involving this topic.

SOURCE: Kessing LV et al. Hypertension. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15605.

The Food and Drug Administration has removed the boxed warning about the risk of leg and foot amputations for canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Janssen), a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the agency announced Aug. 26.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the FDA added the boxed warning to the canagliflozin label in May 2017, after an approximately doubled risk for lower-extremity amputations with the drug compared with placebo was seen during two trials.

The FDA said the decision to remove the boxed warning was made following a review of new data from three clinical trials, which demonstrated additional heart- and kidney-related benefits and led to additional approved uses for canagliflozin.

In 2018, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease.

In 2019, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of end-stage kidney disease, worsening of kidney function, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalization, in adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.

“Collectively, these newly identified effects of canagliflozin on heart and kidney disease show significantly enhanced benefit of this medicine,” the FDA said.

The safety information from these trials, the FDA said, suggests that the risk of amputation, “while still increased with canagliflozin, is lower than previously described, particularly when appropriately monitored.”

The agency added: “Based upon these considerations, FDA concluded that the boxed warning should be removed.”

The FDA announcement said clinicians and patients should continue to be aware of the importance of preventive foot care and to monitor for new pain, tenderness, sores, ulcers, and infections in the legs and feet. Risk factors that may predispose patients to amputation should be considered when choosing antidiabetic medicines.

Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse reactions with canagliflozin to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has removed the boxed warning about the risk of leg and foot amputations for canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Janssen), a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the agency announced Aug. 26.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the FDA added the boxed warning to the canagliflozin label in May 2017, after an approximately doubled risk for lower-extremity amputations with the drug compared with placebo was seen during two trials.

The FDA said the decision to remove the boxed warning was made following a review of new data from three clinical trials, which demonstrated additional heart- and kidney-related benefits and led to additional approved uses for canagliflozin.

In 2018, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease.

In 2019, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of end-stage kidney disease, worsening of kidney function, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalization, in adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.

“Collectively, these newly identified effects of canagliflozin on heart and kidney disease show significantly enhanced benefit of this medicine,” the FDA said.

The safety information from these trials, the FDA said, suggests that the risk of amputation, “while still increased with canagliflozin, is lower than previously described, particularly when appropriately monitored.”

The agency added: “Based upon these considerations, FDA concluded that the boxed warning should be removed.”

The FDA announcement said clinicians and patients should continue to be aware of the importance of preventive foot care and to monitor for new pain, tenderness, sores, ulcers, and infections in the legs and feet. Risk factors that may predispose patients to amputation should be considered when choosing antidiabetic medicines.

Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse reactions with canagliflozin to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has removed the boxed warning about the risk of leg and foot amputations for canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Janssen), a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the agency announced Aug. 26.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the FDA added the boxed warning to the canagliflozin label in May 2017, after an approximately doubled risk for lower-extremity amputations with the drug compared with placebo was seen during two trials.

The FDA said the decision to remove the boxed warning was made following a review of new data from three clinical trials, which demonstrated additional heart- and kidney-related benefits and led to additional approved uses for canagliflozin.

In 2018, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease.

In 2019, canagliflozin was approved to reduce the risk of end-stage kidney disease, worsening of kidney function, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalization, in adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.

“Collectively, these newly identified effects of canagliflozin on heart and kidney disease show significantly enhanced benefit of this medicine,” the FDA said.

The safety information from these trials, the FDA said, suggests that the risk of amputation, “while still increased with canagliflozin, is lower than previously described, particularly when appropriately monitored.”

The agency added: “Based upon these considerations, FDA concluded that the boxed warning should be removed.”

The FDA announcement said clinicians and patients should continue to be aware of the importance of preventive foot care and to monitor for new pain, tenderness, sores, ulcers, and infections in the legs and feet. Risk factors that may predispose patients to amputation should be considered when choosing antidiabetic medicines.

Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse reactions with canagliflozin to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.

Courtesy of Christopher Smith for KHN

After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.

“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”

As COVID-19 continues to spread, an increasing number of rural communities find themselves without their hospital or on the brink of losing already cash-strapped facilities.

Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.

It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”

One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.

Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.

Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.

The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.

Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.

“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.

Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.

“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.

Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.

Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.

For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.

“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.

There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.

“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”

Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.

In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.

Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.

“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”

Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.

“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.

Courtesy of Christopher Smith for KHN

After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.

“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”

As COVID-19 continues to spread, an increasing number of rural communities find themselves without their hospital or on the brink of losing already cash-strapped facilities.

Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.

It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”

One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.

Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.

Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.

The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.

Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.

“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.

Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.

“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.

Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.

Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.

For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.

“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.

There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.

“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”

Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.

In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.

Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.

“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”

Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.

“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Jerome Antone said he is one of the lucky ones.

Courtesy of Christopher Smith for KHN

After becoming ill with COVID-19, Mr. Antone was hospitalized only 65 miles away from his small Alabama town. He is the mayor of Georgiana – population 1,700.

“It hit our rural community so rabid,” Mr. Antone said. The town’s hospital closed last year. If hospitals in nearby communities don’t have beds available, “you may have to go 4 or 5 hours away.”

As COVID-19 continues to spread, an increasing number of rural communities find themselves without their hospital or on the brink of losing already cash-strapped facilities.

Eighteen rural hospitals closed last year and the first 3 months of 2020 were “really big months,” said Mark Holmes, PhD, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many of the losses are in Southern states like Florida and Texas. More than 170 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2005, according to data collected by the Sheps Center.

It’s a dangerous scenario. “We know that a closure leads to higher mortality pretty quickly” among the populations served, said Dr. Holmes, who is also a professor at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “That’s pretty clear.”

One 2019 study found that death rates in the surrounding communities increase nearly 6% after a rural hospital closes – and that’s when there’s not a pandemic.

Add to that what is known about the coronavirus: People who are obese or live with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and other underlying health issues are more susceptible to COVID-19. Rural areas tend to have higher rates of these conditions. And rural residents are more likely to be older, sicker and poorer than those in urban areas. All this leaves rural communities particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus.

Congress approved billions in federal relief funds for health care providers. Initially, federal officials based what a hospital would get on its Medicare payments, but by late April they heeded criticism and carved out funds for rural hospitals and COVID-19 hot spots. Rural hospitals leapt at the chance to shore up already-negative budgets and prepare for the pandemic.

The funds “helped rural hospitals with the immediate storm,” said Don Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association. Nearly 80% of Alabama’s rural hospitals began the year with negative balance sheets and about 8 days’ worth of cash on hand.

Before the pandemic hit this year, hundreds of rural hospitals “were just trying to keep their doors open,” said Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs with the National Rural Health Association. Then an estimated 70% of their income stopped as patients avoided the emergency room, doctor’s appointments, and elective surgeries.

“It was devastating,” Ms. Elehwany said.

Paul Taylor, chief executive of a 25-bed critical-access hospital and outpatient clinics in northwestern Arkansas, accepted millions in grants and loan money Congress approved this spring, largely through the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act.

“For us, this was survival money and we spent it already,” Mr. Taylor said. With those funds, Ozarks Community Hospital increased surge capacity, expanding from 25 beds to 50 beds, adding negative pressure rooms and buying six ventilators. Taylor also ramped up COVID-19 testing at his hospital and clinics, located near some meat-processing plants.

Throughout June and July, Ozarks tested 1,000 patients a day and reported a 20% positive rate. The rate dropped to 16.9% in late July. But patients continue to avoid routine care.

Mr. Taylor said revenue is still constrained and he does not know how he will pay back $8 million that he borrowed from Medicare. The program allowed hospitals to borrow against future payments from the federal government, but stipulated that repayment would begin within 120 days.

For Mr. Taylor, this seems impossible. Medicare makes up 40% of Ozarks’ income. And he has to pay the loan back before he gets any more payments from Medicare. He’s hoping to refinance the hospital’s mortgage.

“If I get no relief and they take the money ... we won’t still be open,” Mr. Taylor said. Ozarks provides 625 jobs and serves an area with a population of about 75,000.

There are 1,300 small critical-access hospitals like Ozarks in rural America, and of those, 859 took advantage of the Medicare loans, sending about $3.1 billion into the local communities. But many rural communities have not yet experienced a surge in coronavirus cases – national leaders fear it will come as part of a new phase.

“There are pockets of rural America who say, ‘We haven’t seen a single COVID patient yet and we do not believe it’s real,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “They will get hit sooner or later.”

Across the country, the reduced patient numbers and increased spending required to fight and prepare for the coronavirus was “like a knife cutting into a hospital’s blood supply,” said Ge Bai, PhD, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Dr. Bai said the way the federal government reimbursed small rural hospitals through federal programs like Medicare before the pandemic was faulty and inefficient. “They are too weak to survive,” she said.

In rural Texas, about 2 hours from Dallas, Titus Regional Medical Center chief executive officer Terry Scoggin cut staff and furloughed workers even as his rural hospital faced down the pandemic. Titus Regional lost about $4 million last fiscal year and broke even each of the three years before that.

Mr. Scoggin said he did not cut from his clinical staff, though. Titus is now facing its second surge of the virus in the community. “The last 7 days, we’ve been testing 30% positive,” he said, including the case of his father, who contracted it at a nursing home and survived.

“It’s personal and this is real,” Mr. Scoggin said. “You know the people who are infected. You know the people who are passing away.”

Of his roughly 700 employees, 48 have tested positive for the virus and 1 has died. They are short on testing kits, medication, and supplies.

“Right now the staff is strained,” Mr. Scoggin said. “I’ve been blown away by their selflessness and unbelievable spirit. We’re resilient, we’re nimble, and we will make it. We don’t have a choice.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.