Cardiology News

As the COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the world, a striking difference has been seen between the sexes. But why are men so much more susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19 than women?

Suspicions naturally turn to the sex hormones, and there have been suggestions that estrogen may be protective against COVID-19 in females and/or that androgens worsen COVID-19 outcomes in males.

New data supporting the androgen theory come from a study in Italy.

These researchers found that patients with prostate cancer being treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were less likely to become infected with COVID-19 and die from the disease than other groups, including other patients with cancer.

The findings suggest that androgens somehow make the virus more virulent and that this exacerbates the severity of disease in men, they say. They also speculate that ADT may be protective against COVID-19.

The study was published online May 7 in Annals of Oncology.

The team analyzed data from 68 hospitals in the Veneto region, one of the areas in Italy most severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

They found data on 9280 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection — of whom 4532 were males.

Women in the region were actually slightly more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than men, 56% vs 44%, the researchers point out.

However, men were more prone to develop more severe forms of the disease: 60% of men vs 40% of women required hospitalization, rising to 78% of men vs 22% of women who required intensive care. Also, more men died than women (62% vs 38%).

The team then turned their focus onto patients with cancer.

Of the entire male population of Veneto, those with cancer had an almost twofold higher risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 than men without cancer (P < .0001).

However, when the team looked specifically at men with prostate cancer in the region, they found “strikingly, only 4 out of 5273 patients receiving ADT developed SARS-CoV-2 infection and none of these patients died.”

This compared to 37,161 men with prostate cancer who were not receiving ADT, among whom 114 men developed COVID-19 and 18 died.

Among another 79,661 patients in the Veneto region with cancer other than prostate cancer, 312 developed COVID-19 and 57 died.

“This is the first paper to suggest a link between ADT and COVID-19,” commented lead author Andrea Alimonti, MD, PhD, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

“Patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT had a significant fourfold reduced risk of COVID-19 infections compared to patients who did not receive ADT. An even greater difference (fivefold reduction in risk) was found when we compared prostate cancer patients receiving ADT to patients with any other type of cancer,” he said.

The finding raises “the hypothesis that androgen levels can facilitate coronavirus infections and increase the severity of symptoms, as has been seen in male patients,” he said.

“These data are very interesting and raise a fascinating hypothesis,” said Richard Martin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol, UK, commenting about the study. “But they do need independent validation in other large population-wide datasets...with appropriate statistical analysis including adjustment for important risk factors for SARS-CoV-2.”

He noted that the Italian study results were not adjusted for potential confounders, for example, age, body mass index, and cardiometabolic comorbidities, that are strong risk factors for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, men taking ADT may have been more likely to self-isolate and so be at reduced risk of getting the infection, he suggested.
 

How Do Androgens Interact With the Virus?

Alimonti and colleagues offer a mechanistic explanation of how androgens interact with the virus.

Coronavirus gains entry into the human cell by binding its viral spike (S) proteins to ACE2 and on S protein priming by TMPRSS2. TMPRSS2 is a member of a family of proteins called type II transmembrane serine proteases, which are involved in a number of processes including cancer and viral infections, they explain.

“Intriguingly, TMPRSS2 is an androgen-regulated gene that is upregulated in prostate cancer where it supports tumor progression,” they point out.

There is also evidence that the same androgen receptor regulates TMPRSS2 expression in nonprostatic tissues, including the lungs.

“[This] may explain the increased susceptibility of men to develop SARS-CoV-2 severe infections when compared to women,” the authors speculate.

Because ADT is known to decrease TMPRSS2 levels, they suggest that androgen receptor antagonists “could be used to block or decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in male patients.”

They go even further and suggest that men without prostate cancer at high risk for COVID-19 could take ADT to prevent infection.

For men who do become infected with COVID-19, ADT might also help reduce symptom severity, they add.

Given that the effects of androgen receptor antagonists are reversible, “they could be used transiently (eg, 1 month) in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2, thereby reducing the risk of side effects due to long-term administration,” the authors suggest.
 

Another Theory: Is Estrogen Protective?

Another theory to explain the male/female difference for severe COVID-19 is that the female hormone estrogen may be protective.

“People have to stop putting estrogen in that ‘female hormone box’ because it’s a molecule that we all use as humans, it’s just not women,” Sharon Nachman, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Looking at estrogen as having potentially important immune effects is part of thinking outside the box,” she said.

Nachman is associate dean for research at the Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University in New York, and is working together with Antonios Gasparis, MD, professor of surgery at the same center.

They are exploring the use of a transdermal estrogen patch in patients with COVID-19 in a randomized trial with a placebo-controlled arm. They are recruiting patients who present to their emergency department with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and enroll them into the trial if they are interested.

“We are testing everyone as well, but we are starting patients on the medication at the time of entry as opposed to waiting until we have a test result back,” Nachman explained.

The primary objective of the study is to evaluate whether the transdermal patch, applied to the skin for 7 days, might reduce the need for intubation in men and women infected with COVID-19 versus standard of care.

The product is the same single-use transdermal estradiol patch (Climara, 25 cm², Bayer) prescribed for postmenopausal women and will be used at the same dose, which is known to be safe.

After the patch is removed, patients will be carefully tracked for symptoms over the next 45 days to see if the patch reduced symptom severity, and if so, in which patients.

Nachman would have preferred to enroll patients before they had overt symptoms, but this simply isn’t possible in a medical center where symptomatic patients present, she told Medscape Medical News.

However, she does know that even at their own medical center, the odds are stacked against male COVID-19 patients — and something is needed to mitigate its severity in this patient group.

As they were developing the protocol for the current study, the team decided to see who was in their ICU during a single study day.

The answer: mostly males. Intubation and death rates in men in their ICU for that single day was approximately 80% compared with only 20% among women.

“We have a new horrific pathogen that is pandemic and we’re all probably going to get it, it’s just a question of when and how sick we’ll be from it,” Nachman said.

Alimonti and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships, as did Goulder and Nachman.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the world, a striking difference has been seen between the sexes. But why are men so much more susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19 than women?

Suspicions naturally turn to the sex hormones, and there have been suggestions that estrogen may be protective against COVID-19 in females and/or that androgens worsen COVID-19 outcomes in males.

New data supporting the androgen theory come from a study in Italy.

These researchers found that patients with prostate cancer being treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were less likely to become infected with COVID-19 and die from the disease than other groups, including other patients with cancer.

The findings suggest that androgens somehow make the virus more virulent and that this exacerbates the severity of disease in men, they say. They also speculate that ADT may be protective against COVID-19.

The study was published online May 7 in Annals of Oncology.

The team analyzed data from 68 hospitals in the Veneto region, one of the areas in Italy most severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

They found data on 9280 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection — of whom 4532 were males.

Women in the region were actually slightly more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than men, 56% vs 44%, the researchers point out.

However, men were more prone to develop more severe forms of the disease: 60% of men vs 40% of women required hospitalization, rising to 78% of men vs 22% of women who required intensive care. Also, more men died than women (62% vs 38%).

The team then turned their focus onto patients with cancer.

Of the entire male population of Veneto, those with cancer had an almost twofold higher risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 than men without cancer (P < .0001).

However, when the team looked specifically at men with prostate cancer in the region, they found “strikingly, only 4 out of 5273 patients receiving ADT developed SARS-CoV-2 infection and none of these patients died.”

This compared to 37,161 men with prostate cancer who were not receiving ADT, among whom 114 men developed COVID-19 and 18 died.

Among another 79,661 patients in the Veneto region with cancer other than prostate cancer, 312 developed COVID-19 and 57 died.

“This is the first paper to suggest a link between ADT and COVID-19,” commented lead author Andrea Alimonti, MD, PhD, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

“Patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT had a significant fourfold reduced risk of COVID-19 infections compared to patients who did not receive ADT. An even greater difference (fivefold reduction in risk) was found when we compared prostate cancer patients receiving ADT to patients with any other type of cancer,” he said.

The finding raises “the hypothesis that androgen levels can facilitate coronavirus infections and increase the severity of symptoms, as has been seen in male patients,” he said.

“These data are very interesting and raise a fascinating hypothesis,” said Richard Martin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol, UK, commenting about the study. “But they do need independent validation in other large population-wide datasets...with appropriate statistical analysis including adjustment for important risk factors for SARS-CoV-2.”

He noted that the Italian study results were not adjusted for potential confounders, for example, age, body mass index, and cardiometabolic comorbidities, that are strong risk factors for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, men taking ADT may have been more likely to self-isolate and so be at reduced risk of getting the infection, he suggested.
 

How Do Androgens Interact With the Virus?

Alimonti and colleagues offer a mechanistic explanation of how androgens interact with the virus.

Coronavirus gains entry into the human cell by binding its viral spike (S) proteins to ACE2 and on S protein priming by TMPRSS2. TMPRSS2 is a member of a family of proteins called type II transmembrane serine proteases, which are involved in a number of processes including cancer and viral infections, they explain.

“Intriguingly, TMPRSS2 is an androgen-regulated gene that is upregulated in prostate cancer where it supports tumor progression,” they point out.

There is also evidence that the same androgen receptor regulates TMPRSS2 expression in nonprostatic tissues, including the lungs.

“[This] may explain the increased susceptibility of men to develop SARS-CoV-2 severe infections when compared to women,” the authors speculate.

Because ADT is known to decrease TMPRSS2 levels, they suggest that androgen receptor antagonists “could be used to block or decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in male patients.”

They go even further and suggest that men without prostate cancer at high risk for COVID-19 could take ADT to prevent infection.

For men who do become infected with COVID-19, ADT might also help reduce symptom severity, they add.

Given that the effects of androgen receptor antagonists are reversible, “they could be used transiently (eg, 1 month) in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2, thereby reducing the risk of side effects due to long-term administration,” the authors suggest.
 

Another Theory: Is Estrogen Protective?

Another theory to explain the male/female difference for severe COVID-19 is that the female hormone estrogen may be protective.

“People have to stop putting estrogen in that ‘female hormone box’ because it’s a molecule that we all use as humans, it’s just not women,” Sharon Nachman, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Looking at estrogen as having potentially important immune effects is part of thinking outside the box,” she said.

Nachman is associate dean for research at the Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University in New York, and is working together with Antonios Gasparis, MD, professor of surgery at the same center.

They are exploring the use of a transdermal estrogen patch in patients with COVID-19 in a randomized trial with a placebo-controlled arm. They are recruiting patients who present to their emergency department with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and enroll them into the trial if they are interested.

“We are testing everyone as well, but we are starting patients on the medication at the time of entry as opposed to waiting until we have a test result back,” Nachman explained.

The primary objective of the study is to evaluate whether the transdermal patch, applied to the skin for 7 days, might reduce the need for intubation in men and women infected with COVID-19 versus standard of care.

The product is the same single-use transdermal estradiol patch (Climara, 25 cm², Bayer) prescribed for postmenopausal women and will be used at the same dose, which is known to be safe.

After the patch is removed, patients will be carefully tracked for symptoms over the next 45 days to see if the patch reduced symptom severity, and if so, in which patients.

Nachman would have preferred to enroll patients before they had overt symptoms, but this simply isn’t possible in a medical center where symptomatic patients present, she told Medscape Medical News.

However, she does know that even at their own medical center, the odds are stacked against male COVID-19 patients — and something is needed to mitigate its severity in this patient group.

As they were developing the protocol for the current study, the team decided to see who was in their ICU during a single study day.

The answer: mostly males. Intubation and death rates in men in their ICU for that single day was approximately 80% compared with only 20% among women.

“We have a new horrific pathogen that is pandemic and we’re all probably going to get it, it’s just a question of when and how sick we’ll be from it,” Nachman said.

Alimonti and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships, as did Goulder and Nachman.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the world, a striking difference has been seen between the sexes. But why are men so much more susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19 than women?

Suspicions naturally turn to the sex hormones, and there have been suggestions that estrogen may be protective against COVID-19 in females and/or that androgens worsen COVID-19 outcomes in males.

New data supporting the androgen theory come from a study in Italy.

These researchers found that patients with prostate cancer being treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were less likely to become infected with COVID-19 and die from the disease than other groups, including other patients with cancer.

The findings suggest that androgens somehow make the virus more virulent and that this exacerbates the severity of disease in men, they say. They also speculate that ADT may be protective against COVID-19.

The study was published online May 7 in Annals of Oncology.

The team analyzed data from 68 hospitals in the Veneto region, one of the areas in Italy most severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

They found data on 9280 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection — of whom 4532 were males.

Women in the region were actually slightly more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than men, 56% vs 44%, the researchers point out.

However, men were more prone to develop more severe forms of the disease: 60% of men vs 40% of women required hospitalization, rising to 78% of men vs 22% of women who required intensive care. Also, more men died than women (62% vs 38%).

The team then turned their focus onto patients with cancer.

Of the entire male population of Veneto, those with cancer had an almost twofold higher risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 than men without cancer (P < .0001).

However, when the team looked specifically at men with prostate cancer in the region, they found “strikingly, only 4 out of 5273 patients receiving ADT developed SARS-CoV-2 infection and none of these patients died.”

This compared to 37,161 men with prostate cancer who were not receiving ADT, among whom 114 men developed COVID-19 and 18 died.

Among another 79,661 patients in the Veneto region with cancer other than prostate cancer, 312 developed COVID-19 and 57 died.

“This is the first paper to suggest a link between ADT and COVID-19,” commented lead author Andrea Alimonti, MD, PhD, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

“Patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT had a significant fourfold reduced risk of COVID-19 infections compared to patients who did not receive ADT. An even greater difference (fivefold reduction in risk) was found when we compared prostate cancer patients receiving ADT to patients with any other type of cancer,” he said.

The finding raises “the hypothesis that androgen levels can facilitate coronavirus infections and increase the severity of symptoms, as has been seen in male patients,” he said.

“These data are very interesting and raise a fascinating hypothesis,” said Richard Martin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol, UK, commenting about the study. “But they do need independent validation in other large population-wide datasets...with appropriate statistical analysis including adjustment for important risk factors for SARS-CoV-2.”

He noted that the Italian study results were not adjusted for potential confounders, for example, age, body mass index, and cardiometabolic comorbidities, that are strong risk factors for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, men taking ADT may have been more likely to self-isolate and so be at reduced risk of getting the infection, he suggested.
 

How Do Androgens Interact With the Virus?

Alimonti and colleagues offer a mechanistic explanation of how androgens interact with the virus.

Coronavirus gains entry into the human cell by binding its viral spike (S) proteins to ACE2 and on S protein priming by TMPRSS2. TMPRSS2 is a member of a family of proteins called type II transmembrane serine proteases, which are involved in a number of processes including cancer and viral infections, they explain.

“Intriguingly, TMPRSS2 is an androgen-regulated gene that is upregulated in prostate cancer where it supports tumor progression,” they point out.

There is also evidence that the same androgen receptor regulates TMPRSS2 expression in nonprostatic tissues, including the lungs.

“[This] may explain the increased susceptibility of men to develop SARS-CoV-2 severe infections when compared to women,” the authors speculate.

Because ADT is known to decrease TMPRSS2 levels, they suggest that androgen receptor antagonists “could be used to block or decrease the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in male patients.”

They go even further and suggest that men without prostate cancer at high risk for COVID-19 could take ADT to prevent infection.

For men who do become infected with COVID-19, ADT might also help reduce symptom severity, they add.

Given that the effects of androgen receptor antagonists are reversible, “they could be used transiently (eg, 1 month) in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2, thereby reducing the risk of side effects due to long-term administration,” the authors suggest.
 

Another Theory: Is Estrogen Protective?

Another theory to explain the male/female difference for severe COVID-19 is that the female hormone estrogen may be protective.

“People have to stop putting estrogen in that ‘female hormone box’ because it’s a molecule that we all use as humans, it’s just not women,” Sharon Nachman, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Looking at estrogen as having potentially important immune effects is part of thinking outside the box,” she said.

Nachman is associate dean for research at the Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University in New York, and is working together with Antonios Gasparis, MD, professor of surgery at the same center.

They are exploring the use of a transdermal estrogen patch in patients with COVID-19 in a randomized trial with a placebo-controlled arm. They are recruiting patients who present to their emergency department with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and enroll them into the trial if they are interested.

“We are testing everyone as well, but we are starting patients on the medication at the time of entry as opposed to waiting until we have a test result back,” Nachman explained.

The primary objective of the study is to evaluate whether the transdermal patch, applied to the skin for 7 days, might reduce the need for intubation in men and women infected with COVID-19 versus standard of care.

The product is the same single-use transdermal estradiol patch (Climara, 25 cm², Bayer) prescribed for postmenopausal women and will be used at the same dose, which is known to be safe.

After the patch is removed, patients will be carefully tracked for symptoms over the next 45 days to see if the patch reduced symptom severity, and if so, in which patients.

Nachman would have preferred to enroll patients before they had overt symptoms, but this simply isn’t possible in a medical center where symptomatic patients present, she told Medscape Medical News.

However, she does know that even at their own medical center, the odds are stacked against male COVID-19 patients — and something is needed to mitigate its severity in this patient group.

As they were developing the protocol for the current study, the team decided to see who was in their ICU during a single study day.

The answer: mostly males. Intubation and death rates in men in their ICU for that single day was approximately 80% compared with only 20% among women.

“We have a new horrific pathogen that is pandemic and we’re all probably going to get it, it’s just a question of when and how sick we’ll be from it,” Nachman said.

Alimonti and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships, as did Goulder and Nachman.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Many ICUs are very busy dealing with the pandemic these days, and a recent survey shows that clinicians in the ICU are feeling the stress.

They are worried about getting infected, and they are even more worried about infecting family members, according to the Society for Critical Care Medicine, which surveyed members of four professional organizations – the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and the SCCM – April 7-22, 2020.

Four items in the survey assessed respondents’ level of stress or concern on a scale of 1-10:

• Personal stress before the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Personal stress as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.
• Concern about personally being exposed to COVID-19.
• Concern about exposing family members to COVID-19.

Personal stress rose from a median of 3 before the pandemic to a current 8, a level that was equaled by personal concerns about being exposed and surpassed (10) by concerns about exposing family members, the SCCM reported in a blog post.

Most of the respondents “are taking special measures to limit the potential spread of the virus to their loved ones, including implementing a decontamination routine before interacting with families,” the SCCM wrote.

The most common strategy, employed by 72% of ICU clinicians, is changing clothes before/after work. Showering before joining family was mentioned by 64% of providers, followed by limiting contact until decontamination (57%) and using hand sanitizer before entering home (51%), the SCCM said.

More extreme measures included self-isolating within their homes (16%) and staying in alternative housing away from their families (12%), the SCCM said, based on data for 9,120 clinicians in the United States.

Most of the respondents (88%) reported having cared for a patient with confirmed or presumed COVID-19. Nurses made up the majority (91%) of the sample, which also included nurse practitioners and physician assistants (4.5%) and physicians (2.9%), as well as smaller numbers of respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and emergency medicine flight personnel.

The results of the survey “underline the personal sacrifices of critical care clinicians during the COVID-19 response and suggest the need to help them proactively manage stress,” the SCCM wrote.

[email protected]

Many ICUs are very busy dealing with the pandemic these days, and a recent survey shows that clinicians in the ICU are feeling the stress.

They are worried about getting infected, and they are even more worried about infecting family members, according to the Society for Critical Care Medicine, which surveyed members of four professional organizations – the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and the SCCM – April 7-22, 2020.

Four items in the survey assessed respondents’ level of stress or concern on a scale of 1-10:

• Personal stress before the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Personal stress as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.
• Concern about personally being exposed to COVID-19.
• Concern about exposing family members to COVID-19.

Personal stress rose from a median of 3 before the pandemic to a current 8, a level that was equaled by personal concerns about being exposed and surpassed (10) by concerns about exposing family members, the SCCM reported in a blog post.

Most of the respondents “are taking special measures to limit the potential spread of the virus to their loved ones, including implementing a decontamination routine before interacting with families,” the SCCM wrote.

The most common strategy, employed by 72% of ICU clinicians, is changing clothes before/after work. Showering before joining family was mentioned by 64% of providers, followed by limiting contact until decontamination (57%) and using hand sanitizer before entering home (51%), the SCCM said.

More extreme measures included self-isolating within their homes (16%) and staying in alternative housing away from their families (12%), the SCCM said, based on data for 9,120 clinicians in the United States.

Most of the respondents (88%) reported having cared for a patient with confirmed or presumed COVID-19. Nurses made up the majority (91%) of the sample, which also included nurse practitioners and physician assistants (4.5%) and physicians (2.9%), as well as smaller numbers of respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and emergency medicine flight personnel.

The results of the survey “underline the personal sacrifices of critical care clinicians during the COVID-19 response and suggest the need to help them proactively manage stress,” the SCCM wrote.

[email protected]

Many ICUs are very busy dealing with the pandemic these days, and a recent survey shows that clinicians in the ICU are feeling the stress.

They are worried about getting infected, and they are even more worried about infecting family members, according to the Society for Critical Care Medicine, which surveyed members of four professional organizations – the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and the SCCM – April 7-22, 2020.

Four items in the survey assessed respondents’ level of stress or concern on a scale of 1-10:

• Personal stress before the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Personal stress as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.
• Concern about personally being exposed to COVID-19.
• Concern about exposing family members to COVID-19.

Personal stress rose from a median of 3 before the pandemic to a current 8, a level that was equaled by personal concerns about being exposed and surpassed (10) by concerns about exposing family members, the SCCM reported in a blog post.

Most of the respondents “are taking special measures to limit the potential spread of the virus to their loved ones, including implementing a decontamination routine before interacting with families,” the SCCM wrote.

The most common strategy, employed by 72% of ICU clinicians, is changing clothes before/after work. Showering before joining family was mentioned by 64% of providers, followed by limiting contact until decontamination (57%) and using hand sanitizer before entering home (51%), the SCCM said.

More extreme measures included self-isolating within their homes (16%) and staying in alternative housing away from their families (12%), the SCCM said, based on data for 9,120 clinicians in the United States.

Most of the respondents (88%) reported having cared for a patient with confirmed or presumed COVID-19. Nurses made up the majority (91%) of the sample, which also included nurse practitioners and physician assistants (4.5%) and physicians (2.9%), as well as smaller numbers of respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and emergency medicine flight personnel.

The results of the survey “underline the personal sacrifices of critical care clinicians during the COVID-19 response and suggest the need to help them proactively manage stress,” the SCCM wrote.

[email protected]

After COVID-19 hit the Denver area, internist Jean Kutner, MD, and her clinical colleagues drastically reduced the number of patients they saw and kept a minimum number of people in the office. A small team sees patients who still require in-person visits on one side of the clinic; on the other side, another team conducts clinic-based telehealth visits. A rotating schedule allows for social distancing.

The rest of the practice’s physicians are home, conducting more virtual visits.

Dr. Kutner said she is looking forward to reopening her practice completely at some point. She said she realizes that the practice probably won’t be exactly the same as before.

“We have to embrace the fact that the way we practice medicine has fundamentally changed,” said Dr. Kutner, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and incoming president of the Society of General Internal Medicine. She anticipates keeping many of these changes in place for the foreseeable future.

Nearly half of 2,600 primary care physicians who responded to a recent national survey said they were struggling to remain open during the crisis. Most have had to limit wellness/chronic-disease management visits, and nearly half reported that physicians or staff were out sick. Layoffs, furloughs, and reduced hours are commonplace; some practices were forced to shut down entirely.

Social distancing helps reduce the rates of hospitalizations and deaths. Now, many physicians are considering when and how to reopen their offices and ramp up to full capacity. But they’re also aware that it won’t be “business as usual” for quite some time.

For example, remote monitoring capabilities have reduced the need for in-person checks of vital signs, such as respiratory rate oxygenation, blood glucose levels, and heart rate. “We can’t go back,” she said.

Dr. Kutner sees the pandemic as an opportunity to innovate, to think about how primary practices can best utilize their resources, face-to-face time with patients, and when and how to best leverage virtual visits in a way that improves patient health. The goal, of course, is to meet the needs of the patients while keeping everyone safe.

Like many physicians in private practice, Dr. Kutner is concerned about revenue. She hopes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services makes its temporary waivers permanent.
 

What you need to consider when planning to reopen your office

Physicians say their post-COVID-19 practices will look very different from their prepandemic practices. Many plan to maintain guidelines, such as those from the AAFP, long after the pandemic has peaked.

If you are starting to think about reopening, here are some major considerations.
 

1. Develop procedures and practices that will keep your patients and staff safe.

“When we return, the first thing we need to do is limit the number of patients in the waiting room,” said Clinton Coleman, MD, who practices internal medicine and nephrology in Teaneck, N.J. “No one is comfortable in a waiting room any longer,” said Dr. Coleman, chief of internal medicine at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck.

Careful planning is required to resume in-person care of patients requiring non-COVID-19 care, as well as all aspects of care, according to the CMS. Adequate staff, testing, supplies, and support services, such as pathology services, are just a few considerations. The CMS recommends that physicians “evaluate the necessity of the care based on clinical needs. Providers should prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management; however, select preventive services may also be highly necessary.”

The American Medical Association recently unveiled a checklist for reopening. One key recommendation was for practices to select a date for reopening the office, ideally preceded by a “soft” or incremental reopening to ensure that new procedures are working. The AMA also recommends opening incrementally, continuing telehealth while also inviting patients back into the office.
 

2. Figure out how to safely see patients, particularly in your waiting areas and common spaces.

Logistic factors, such as managing patient flow, will change. Waiting rooms will be emptier; in some locations, patients may be asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is available.

The AMA also suggests limiting nonpatient visitors by posting the practice’s policy at the entrance and on the practice’s website. If service calls for repairs are needed, have those visitors come outside of normal operating hours.

Commonly shared objects such magazines or toys in pediatric offices will likely disappear. Wipes, hand sanitizers, and the wearing of masks will become even more commonplace. Those who suspect they’re ill or who have respiratory symptoms may be relegated to specific “sick visit” appointment times or taken to designated exam rooms, which will be thoroughly sanitized between patients.
 

3. Prepare for routine screening of staff and other facility workers.

According to recent CMS guidelines, you and your staff will need to undergo routine screening, as will others who work in the facility (housekeeping, delivery personnel, and anyone else who enters the area). This may mean regularly stocking screening tests and setting guidelines for what to do if one of your staff tests positive.

You may need to hire temporary workers if your staff tests positive. The CDC recommends at the very least understanding the minimum staffing requirements to ensure good patient care and a safe work environment. Consider adjusting staff schedules and rotating clinical personnel to positions that support patient care activities. You may also want to look into cross-training your office staff so that they can fill in or help out with each other’s responsibilities if one or more persons are ill.

Dr. Kutner is on board with these changes. “We don’t want to get rid of social distancing right away, because it will give us a new spike in cases – how do we figure out patient flow while honoring that?”
 

4. Develop a strategy for triaging and caring for a potential backlog of patients.

“Many of my partners are scared right now because they have no income except for emergencies,” said Andrew Gonzalez, MD, JD, MPH, a vascular surgeon and assistant professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Almost all nonemergency surgery has been put on hold.

“If we don’t operate, the practice makes no money,” he said. He thinks revenue will continue to be a problem as long as patients fear in-person consultations or undergoing surgery for nonacute problems such as hernias.

As restrictions ease, most physicians will face an enormous backlog of patients and will need to find new ways of triaging the most serious cases, he says. Telehealth will help, but Dr. Gonzalez predicts many of his colleagues will be working longer hours and on weekends to catch up. “Physicians are going to have to really think about ways of optimizing their time and workflow to be very efficient, because the backlog is going to prodigious.”
 

5. Anticipate changes in patient expectations.

This may entail your reconsidering tests and procedures you previously performed and considering developing new sources for some services, phasing some others out, and revising your current approach. It will most likely also mean that you make telemedicine and televisits a greater part of your practice.

Carolyn Kaloostian, MD, a family medicine and geriatric practitioner in Los Angeles, points to increased reliance on community agencies for conducting common office-based procedures, such as performing blood tests and taking ECGs and x-rays. “A lot of patients are using telemedicine or telephone visits and get the lab work or x-rays somewhere that’s less congested,” she said. To become sustainable, many of these changes will hinge on economics – whether and how they are reimbursed.

The pandemic will leave lasting effects in our health care delivery, according to Dr. Kaloostian. She is sure many of her colleagues’ and patients’ current experiences will be infused into future care. “I can’t say we’ll ever be back to normal, necessarily.”

Even if the CMS rolls back its telehealth waivers, some physicians, like Dr. Coleman, plan to continue using the technology extensively. He’s confident about the level of care he’s currently providing patients in his practice. It allows him to better manage many low-income patients who can’t access his office regularly. Not only does splitting his time between the clinic and telehealth allow him to be more available for more patients, he says it also empowers patients to take better care of themselves.
 

6. Consider a new way to conduct “check-in visits.”

One thing that will likely go by the wayside are “check-in” visits, or so-called “social visits,” those interval appointments that can just as easily be completed virtually. “Patients are going to ask why they need to drive 3 hours so you can tell them their incision looks fine from an operation you did 5 years ago,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

He’s concerned that some people will remain so fearful of the health care system that a formerly busy practice may see the pendulum swing in the opposite direction. If an aneurysm patient skips a visit, that person may also decide not to undergo a CT scan – and something preventable will be missed. “Not everybody has the option to stay away until they feel comfortable. They’re basically playing hot potato. And at some point, the music’s going to stop,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

The pandemic has prompted some very honest conversations with his patients about what truly needs to get done and what may be optional. “Everyone has now become a hyper-rational user of health care,” he said.
 

7. If you haven’t yet, consider becoming more involved with technology.

In addition to greater use of telehealth, Dr. Kaloostian, assistant professor of clinical family medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, foresees continued reliance upon technology such as smartphone apps that connect with a user’s smartwatch. This allows for more proactive, remote monitoring.

“For example, any time a patient is having recurrent nighttime trips to the bathroom, I’ll get pinged and know that,” she explained. It means she can reach out and ask about any changes before a fall occurs or a condition worsens. “It provides reassurance to the provider and to the patient that you’re doing all you can to keep an eye on them from afar.”
 

8. Update or reformulate your business plans.

Some physicians in smaller practices may have to temporarily or permanently rethink their situation. Those who have struggled or who have closed down and are considering reopening need to update their business plans. It may be safer economically to become part of a bigger group that is affiliated with an academic center or join a larger health care system that has more funds or resources.

In addition, Dr. Kaloostian suggests that primary care physicians become more flexible in the short term, perhaps working part time in an urgent care clinic or larger organization to gain additional sources of revenue until their own practice finances pick back up.

For offices that reopen, the AMA recommends contacting medical malpractice insurance carriers to check on possible liability concerns. Congress has provided certain protections for clinicians during this time, but malpractice carriers may have more information and may offer more coverage.

Dr. Coleman said a hybrid model of fewer in-person and more telehealth visits “will allow me to practice in a different way.” If the CMS reimposes prior restrictions, reimbursement may be affected initially, but that will likely change once insurers see the increased cost-effectiveness of this approach. Patients with minor complaints, those who need to have medications refilled, and patients with chronic diseases that need managing won’t have to deal with crowded waiting rooms, and it will help mitigate problems with infection control.

If there’s any upside to the pandemic, it’s an increase in attention given to advanced care planning, said Dr. Kutner. It’s something she hopes continues after everyone stops being in crisis mode. “We’re realizing how important it is to have these conversations and document people’s goals and values and code status,” she said.
 

Are offices likely to open soon?

An assumption that may or may not be valid is that a practice will remain viable and can return to former capacity. Prior to passage of the CARES Act on March 27, a survey from Kareo, a company in Irvine, California, that makes a technology platform for independent physician practices, found that 9% of respondents reported practice closures. Many more reported concern about potential closures as patient office visits plummet because of stay-at-home orders and other concerns.

By mid-April, a survey from the Primary Care Collaborative and the Larry A. Green Center found that 42% of practices had experienced layoffs and had furloughed staff. Most (85%) have seen dramatic decreases in patient volume.

“Reopening the economy or loosening physical distancing restrictions will be difficult when 20% of primary care practices predict closure within 4 weeks,” the survey concluded.

For the practices and the doctors who make it through this, we’re going to probably be better, stronger, and more efficient, Dr. Gonzalez predicts. This shock has uncovered a lot of weaknesses in the American health care system that doctors have known about and have been complaining about for a long time. It will take an open mind and lots of continued flexibility on the part of physicians, hospitals, health care systems, and the government for these changes to stick.
 

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

After COVID-19 hit the Denver area, internist Jean Kutner, MD, and her clinical colleagues drastically reduced the number of patients they saw and kept a minimum number of people in the office. A small team sees patients who still require in-person visits on one side of the clinic; on the other side, another team conducts clinic-based telehealth visits. A rotating schedule allows for social distancing.

The rest of the practice’s physicians are home, conducting more virtual visits.

Dr. Kutner said she is looking forward to reopening her practice completely at some point. She said she realizes that the practice probably won’t be exactly the same as before.

“We have to embrace the fact that the way we practice medicine has fundamentally changed,” said Dr. Kutner, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and incoming president of the Society of General Internal Medicine. She anticipates keeping many of these changes in place for the foreseeable future.

Nearly half of 2,600 primary care physicians who responded to a recent national survey said they were struggling to remain open during the crisis. Most have had to limit wellness/chronic-disease management visits, and nearly half reported that physicians or staff were out sick. Layoffs, furloughs, and reduced hours are commonplace; some practices were forced to shut down entirely.

Social distancing helps reduce the rates of hospitalizations and deaths. Now, many physicians are considering when and how to reopen their offices and ramp up to full capacity. But they’re also aware that it won’t be “business as usual” for quite some time.

For example, remote monitoring capabilities have reduced the need for in-person checks of vital signs, such as respiratory rate oxygenation, blood glucose levels, and heart rate. “We can’t go back,” she said.

Dr. Kutner sees the pandemic as an opportunity to innovate, to think about how primary practices can best utilize their resources, face-to-face time with patients, and when and how to best leverage virtual visits in a way that improves patient health. The goal, of course, is to meet the needs of the patients while keeping everyone safe.

Like many physicians in private practice, Dr. Kutner is concerned about revenue. She hopes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services makes its temporary waivers permanent.
 

What you need to consider when planning to reopen your office

Physicians say their post-COVID-19 practices will look very different from their prepandemic practices. Many plan to maintain guidelines, such as those from the AAFP, long after the pandemic has peaked.

If you are starting to think about reopening, here are some major considerations.
 

1. Develop procedures and practices that will keep your patients and staff safe.

“When we return, the first thing we need to do is limit the number of patients in the waiting room,” said Clinton Coleman, MD, who practices internal medicine and nephrology in Teaneck, N.J. “No one is comfortable in a waiting room any longer,” said Dr. Coleman, chief of internal medicine at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck.

Careful planning is required to resume in-person care of patients requiring non-COVID-19 care, as well as all aspects of care, according to the CMS. Adequate staff, testing, supplies, and support services, such as pathology services, are just a few considerations. The CMS recommends that physicians “evaluate the necessity of the care based on clinical needs. Providers should prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management; however, select preventive services may also be highly necessary.”

The American Medical Association recently unveiled a checklist for reopening. One key recommendation was for practices to select a date for reopening the office, ideally preceded by a “soft” or incremental reopening to ensure that new procedures are working. The AMA also recommends opening incrementally, continuing telehealth while also inviting patients back into the office.
 

2. Figure out how to safely see patients, particularly in your waiting areas and common spaces.

Logistic factors, such as managing patient flow, will change. Waiting rooms will be emptier; in some locations, patients may be asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is available.

The AMA also suggests limiting nonpatient visitors by posting the practice’s policy at the entrance and on the practice’s website. If service calls for repairs are needed, have those visitors come outside of normal operating hours.

Commonly shared objects such magazines or toys in pediatric offices will likely disappear. Wipes, hand sanitizers, and the wearing of masks will become even more commonplace. Those who suspect they’re ill or who have respiratory symptoms may be relegated to specific “sick visit” appointment times or taken to designated exam rooms, which will be thoroughly sanitized between patients.
 

3. Prepare for routine screening of staff and other facility workers.

According to recent CMS guidelines, you and your staff will need to undergo routine screening, as will others who work in the facility (housekeeping, delivery personnel, and anyone else who enters the area). This may mean regularly stocking screening tests and setting guidelines for what to do if one of your staff tests positive.

You may need to hire temporary workers if your staff tests positive. The CDC recommends at the very least understanding the minimum staffing requirements to ensure good patient care and a safe work environment. Consider adjusting staff schedules and rotating clinical personnel to positions that support patient care activities. You may also want to look into cross-training your office staff so that they can fill in or help out with each other’s responsibilities if one or more persons are ill.

Dr. Kutner is on board with these changes. “We don’t want to get rid of social distancing right away, because it will give us a new spike in cases – how do we figure out patient flow while honoring that?”
 

4. Develop a strategy for triaging and caring for a potential backlog of patients.

“Many of my partners are scared right now because they have no income except for emergencies,” said Andrew Gonzalez, MD, JD, MPH, a vascular surgeon and assistant professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Almost all nonemergency surgery has been put on hold.

“If we don’t operate, the practice makes no money,” he said. He thinks revenue will continue to be a problem as long as patients fear in-person consultations or undergoing surgery for nonacute problems such as hernias.

As restrictions ease, most physicians will face an enormous backlog of patients and will need to find new ways of triaging the most serious cases, he says. Telehealth will help, but Dr. Gonzalez predicts many of his colleagues will be working longer hours and on weekends to catch up. “Physicians are going to have to really think about ways of optimizing their time and workflow to be very efficient, because the backlog is going to prodigious.”
 

5. Anticipate changes in patient expectations.

This may entail your reconsidering tests and procedures you previously performed and considering developing new sources for some services, phasing some others out, and revising your current approach. It will most likely also mean that you make telemedicine and televisits a greater part of your practice.

Carolyn Kaloostian, MD, a family medicine and geriatric practitioner in Los Angeles, points to increased reliance on community agencies for conducting common office-based procedures, such as performing blood tests and taking ECGs and x-rays. “A lot of patients are using telemedicine or telephone visits and get the lab work or x-rays somewhere that’s less congested,” she said. To become sustainable, many of these changes will hinge on economics – whether and how they are reimbursed.

The pandemic will leave lasting effects in our health care delivery, according to Dr. Kaloostian. She is sure many of her colleagues’ and patients’ current experiences will be infused into future care. “I can’t say we’ll ever be back to normal, necessarily.”

Even if the CMS rolls back its telehealth waivers, some physicians, like Dr. Coleman, plan to continue using the technology extensively. He’s confident about the level of care he’s currently providing patients in his practice. It allows him to better manage many low-income patients who can’t access his office regularly. Not only does splitting his time between the clinic and telehealth allow him to be more available for more patients, he says it also empowers patients to take better care of themselves.
 

6. Consider a new way to conduct “check-in visits.”

One thing that will likely go by the wayside are “check-in” visits, or so-called “social visits,” those interval appointments that can just as easily be completed virtually. “Patients are going to ask why they need to drive 3 hours so you can tell them their incision looks fine from an operation you did 5 years ago,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

He’s concerned that some people will remain so fearful of the health care system that a formerly busy practice may see the pendulum swing in the opposite direction. If an aneurysm patient skips a visit, that person may also decide not to undergo a CT scan – and something preventable will be missed. “Not everybody has the option to stay away until they feel comfortable. They’re basically playing hot potato. And at some point, the music’s going to stop,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

The pandemic has prompted some very honest conversations with his patients about what truly needs to get done and what may be optional. “Everyone has now become a hyper-rational user of health care,” he said.
 

7. If you haven’t yet, consider becoming more involved with technology.

In addition to greater use of telehealth, Dr. Kaloostian, assistant professor of clinical family medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, foresees continued reliance upon technology such as smartphone apps that connect with a user’s smartwatch. This allows for more proactive, remote monitoring.

“For example, any time a patient is having recurrent nighttime trips to the bathroom, I’ll get pinged and know that,” she explained. It means she can reach out and ask about any changes before a fall occurs or a condition worsens. “It provides reassurance to the provider and to the patient that you’re doing all you can to keep an eye on them from afar.”
 

8. Update or reformulate your business plans.

Some physicians in smaller practices may have to temporarily or permanently rethink their situation. Those who have struggled or who have closed down and are considering reopening need to update their business plans. It may be safer economically to become part of a bigger group that is affiliated with an academic center or join a larger health care system that has more funds or resources.

In addition, Dr. Kaloostian suggests that primary care physicians become more flexible in the short term, perhaps working part time in an urgent care clinic or larger organization to gain additional sources of revenue until their own practice finances pick back up.

For offices that reopen, the AMA recommends contacting medical malpractice insurance carriers to check on possible liability concerns. Congress has provided certain protections for clinicians during this time, but malpractice carriers may have more information and may offer more coverage.

Dr. Coleman said a hybrid model of fewer in-person and more telehealth visits “will allow me to practice in a different way.” If the CMS reimposes prior restrictions, reimbursement may be affected initially, but that will likely change once insurers see the increased cost-effectiveness of this approach. Patients with minor complaints, those who need to have medications refilled, and patients with chronic diseases that need managing won’t have to deal with crowded waiting rooms, and it will help mitigate problems with infection control.

If there’s any upside to the pandemic, it’s an increase in attention given to advanced care planning, said Dr. Kutner. It’s something she hopes continues after everyone stops being in crisis mode. “We’re realizing how important it is to have these conversations and document people’s goals and values and code status,” she said.
 

Are offices likely to open soon?

An assumption that may or may not be valid is that a practice will remain viable and can return to former capacity. Prior to passage of the CARES Act on March 27, a survey from Kareo, a company in Irvine, California, that makes a technology platform for independent physician practices, found that 9% of respondents reported practice closures. Many more reported concern about potential closures as patient office visits plummet because of stay-at-home orders and other concerns.

By mid-April, a survey from the Primary Care Collaborative and the Larry A. Green Center found that 42% of practices had experienced layoffs and had furloughed staff. Most (85%) have seen dramatic decreases in patient volume.

“Reopening the economy or loosening physical distancing restrictions will be difficult when 20% of primary care practices predict closure within 4 weeks,” the survey concluded.

For the practices and the doctors who make it through this, we’re going to probably be better, stronger, and more efficient, Dr. Gonzalez predicts. This shock has uncovered a lot of weaknesses in the American health care system that doctors have known about and have been complaining about for a long time. It will take an open mind and lots of continued flexibility on the part of physicians, hospitals, health care systems, and the government for these changes to stick.
 

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

After COVID-19 hit the Denver area, internist Jean Kutner, MD, and her clinical colleagues drastically reduced the number of patients they saw and kept a minimum number of people in the office. A small team sees patients who still require in-person visits on one side of the clinic; on the other side, another team conducts clinic-based telehealth visits. A rotating schedule allows for social distancing.

The rest of the practice’s physicians are home, conducting more virtual visits.

Dr. Kutner said she is looking forward to reopening her practice completely at some point. She said she realizes that the practice probably won’t be exactly the same as before.

“We have to embrace the fact that the way we practice medicine has fundamentally changed,” said Dr. Kutner, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and incoming president of the Society of General Internal Medicine. She anticipates keeping many of these changes in place for the foreseeable future.

Nearly half of 2,600 primary care physicians who responded to a recent national survey said they were struggling to remain open during the crisis. Most have had to limit wellness/chronic-disease management visits, and nearly half reported that physicians or staff were out sick. Layoffs, furloughs, and reduced hours are commonplace; some practices were forced to shut down entirely.

Social distancing helps reduce the rates of hospitalizations and deaths. Now, many physicians are considering when and how to reopen their offices and ramp up to full capacity. But they’re also aware that it won’t be “business as usual” for quite some time.

For example, remote monitoring capabilities have reduced the need for in-person checks of vital signs, such as respiratory rate oxygenation, blood glucose levels, and heart rate. “We can’t go back,” she said.

Dr. Kutner sees the pandemic as an opportunity to innovate, to think about how primary practices can best utilize their resources, face-to-face time with patients, and when and how to best leverage virtual visits in a way that improves patient health. The goal, of course, is to meet the needs of the patients while keeping everyone safe.

Like many physicians in private practice, Dr. Kutner is concerned about revenue. She hopes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services makes its temporary waivers permanent.
 

What you need to consider when planning to reopen your office

Physicians say their post-COVID-19 practices will look very different from their prepandemic practices. Many plan to maintain guidelines, such as those from the AAFP, long after the pandemic has peaked.

If you are starting to think about reopening, here are some major considerations.
 

1. Develop procedures and practices that will keep your patients and staff safe.

“When we return, the first thing we need to do is limit the number of patients in the waiting room,” said Clinton Coleman, MD, who practices internal medicine and nephrology in Teaneck, N.J. “No one is comfortable in a waiting room any longer,” said Dr. Coleman, chief of internal medicine at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck.

Careful planning is required to resume in-person care of patients requiring non-COVID-19 care, as well as all aspects of care, according to the CMS. Adequate staff, testing, supplies, and support services, such as pathology services, are just a few considerations. The CMS recommends that physicians “evaluate the necessity of the care based on clinical needs. Providers should prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management; however, select preventive services may also be highly necessary.”

The American Medical Association recently unveiled a checklist for reopening. One key recommendation was for practices to select a date for reopening the office, ideally preceded by a “soft” or incremental reopening to ensure that new procedures are working. The AMA also recommends opening incrementally, continuing telehealth while also inviting patients back into the office.
 

2. Figure out how to safely see patients, particularly in your waiting areas and common spaces.

Logistic factors, such as managing patient flow, will change. Waiting rooms will be emptier; in some locations, patients may be asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is available.

The AMA also suggests limiting nonpatient visitors by posting the practice’s policy at the entrance and on the practice’s website. If service calls for repairs are needed, have those visitors come outside of normal operating hours.

Commonly shared objects such magazines or toys in pediatric offices will likely disappear. Wipes, hand sanitizers, and the wearing of masks will become even more commonplace. Those who suspect they’re ill or who have respiratory symptoms may be relegated to specific “sick visit” appointment times or taken to designated exam rooms, which will be thoroughly sanitized between patients.
 

3. Prepare for routine screening of staff and other facility workers.

According to recent CMS guidelines, you and your staff will need to undergo routine screening, as will others who work in the facility (housekeeping, delivery personnel, and anyone else who enters the area). This may mean regularly stocking screening tests and setting guidelines for what to do if one of your staff tests positive.

You may need to hire temporary workers if your staff tests positive. The CDC recommends at the very least understanding the minimum staffing requirements to ensure good patient care and a safe work environment. Consider adjusting staff schedules and rotating clinical personnel to positions that support patient care activities. You may also want to look into cross-training your office staff so that they can fill in or help out with each other’s responsibilities if one or more persons are ill.

Dr. Kutner is on board with these changes. “We don’t want to get rid of social distancing right away, because it will give us a new spike in cases – how do we figure out patient flow while honoring that?”
 

4. Develop a strategy for triaging and caring for a potential backlog of patients.

“Many of my partners are scared right now because they have no income except for emergencies,” said Andrew Gonzalez, MD, JD, MPH, a vascular surgeon and assistant professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Almost all nonemergency surgery has been put on hold.

“If we don’t operate, the practice makes no money,” he said. He thinks revenue will continue to be a problem as long as patients fear in-person consultations or undergoing surgery for nonacute problems such as hernias.

As restrictions ease, most physicians will face an enormous backlog of patients and will need to find new ways of triaging the most serious cases, he says. Telehealth will help, but Dr. Gonzalez predicts many of his colleagues will be working longer hours and on weekends to catch up. “Physicians are going to have to really think about ways of optimizing their time and workflow to be very efficient, because the backlog is going to prodigious.”
 

5. Anticipate changes in patient expectations.

This may entail your reconsidering tests and procedures you previously performed and considering developing new sources for some services, phasing some others out, and revising your current approach. It will most likely also mean that you make telemedicine and televisits a greater part of your practice.

Carolyn Kaloostian, MD, a family medicine and geriatric practitioner in Los Angeles, points to increased reliance on community agencies for conducting common office-based procedures, such as performing blood tests and taking ECGs and x-rays. “A lot of patients are using telemedicine or telephone visits and get the lab work or x-rays somewhere that’s less congested,” she said. To become sustainable, many of these changes will hinge on economics – whether and how they are reimbursed.

The pandemic will leave lasting effects in our health care delivery, according to Dr. Kaloostian. She is sure many of her colleagues’ and patients’ current experiences will be infused into future care. “I can’t say we’ll ever be back to normal, necessarily.”

Even if the CMS rolls back its telehealth waivers, some physicians, like Dr. Coleman, plan to continue using the technology extensively. He’s confident about the level of care he’s currently providing patients in his practice. It allows him to better manage many low-income patients who can’t access his office regularly. Not only does splitting his time between the clinic and telehealth allow him to be more available for more patients, he says it also empowers patients to take better care of themselves.
 

6. Consider a new way to conduct “check-in visits.”

One thing that will likely go by the wayside are “check-in” visits, or so-called “social visits,” those interval appointments that can just as easily be completed virtually. “Patients are going to ask why they need to drive 3 hours so you can tell them their incision looks fine from an operation you did 5 years ago,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

He’s concerned that some people will remain so fearful of the health care system that a formerly busy practice may see the pendulum swing in the opposite direction. If an aneurysm patient skips a visit, that person may also decide not to undergo a CT scan – and something preventable will be missed. “Not everybody has the option to stay away until they feel comfortable. They’re basically playing hot potato. And at some point, the music’s going to stop,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

The pandemic has prompted some very honest conversations with his patients about what truly needs to get done and what may be optional. “Everyone has now become a hyper-rational user of health care,” he said.
 

7. If you haven’t yet, consider becoming more involved with technology.

In addition to greater use of telehealth, Dr. Kaloostian, assistant professor of clinical family medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, foresees continued reliance upon technology such as smartphone apps that connect with a user’s smartwatch. This allows for more proactive, remote monitoring.

“For example, any time a patient is having recurrent nighttime trips to the bathroom, I’ll get pinged and know that,” she explained. It means she can reach out and ask about any changes before a fall occurs or a condition worsens. “It provides reassurance to the provider and to the patient that you’re doing all you can to keep an eye on them from afar.”
 

8. Update or reformulate your business plans.

Some physicians in smaller practices may have to temporarily or permanently rethink their situation. Those who have struggled or who have closed down and are considering reopening need to update their business plans. It may be safer economically to become part of a bigger group that is affiliated with an academic center or join a larger health care system that has more funds or resources.

In addition, Dr. Kaloostian suggests that primary care physicians become more flexible in the short term, perhaps working part time in an urgent care clinic or larger organization to gain additional sources of revenue until their own practice finances pick back up.

For offices that reopen, the AMA recommends contacting medical malpractice insurance carriers to check on possible liability concerns. Congress has provided certain protections for clinicians during this time, but malpractice carriers may have more information and may offer more coverage.

Dr. Coleman said a hybrid model of fewer in-person and more telehealth visits “will allow me to practice in a different way.” If the CMS reimposes prior restrictions, reimbursement may be affected initially, but that will likely change once insurers see the increased cost-effectiveness of this approach. Patients with minor complaints, those who need to have medications refilled, and patients with chronic diseases that need managing won’t have to deal with crowded waiting rooms, and it will help mitigate problems with infection control.

If there’s any upside to the pandemic, it’s an increase in attention given to advanced care planning, said Dr. Kutner. It’s something she hopes continues after everyone stops being in crisis mode. “We’re realizing how important it is to have these conversations and document people’s goals and values and code status,” she said.
 

Are offices likely to open soon?

An assumption that may or may not be valid is that a practice will remain viable and can return to former capacity. Prior to passage of the CARES Act on March 27, a survey from Kareo, a company in Irvine, California, that makes a technology platform for independent physician practices, found that 9% of respondents reported practice closures. Many more reported concern about potential closures as patient office visits plummet because of stay-at-home orders and other concerns.

By mid-April, a survey from the Primary Care Collaborative and the Larry A. Green Center found that 42% of practices had experienced layoffs and had furloughed staff. Most (85%) have seen dramatic decreases in patient volume.

“Reopening the economy or loosening physical distancing restrictions will be difficult when 20% of primary care practices predict closure within 4 weeks,” the survey concluded.

For the practices and the doctors who make it through this, we’re going to probably be better, stronger, and more efficient, Dr. Gonzalez predicts. This shock has uncovered a lot of weaknesses in the American health care system that doctors have known about and have been complaining about for a long time. It will take an open mind and lots of continued flexibility on the part of physicians, hospitals, health care systems, and the government for these changes to stick.
 

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

Adolescents with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and systolic hypertension show accelerated development of signs of atherosclerosis significantly greater than their normal-weight peers, according to a longitudinal study published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The study evaluated 448 adolescents over 5 years for changes in a variety of metrics to determine changes in arterial structure, including carotid intima media thickness (cIMT), carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index (Aix). The average age of the study group was 17.6 years. The three study groups broke down accordingly: 141 with normal weight, 156 with obesity, and 151 with type 2 diabetes. Patients were evaluated at baseline and 5 years later.

“The presence of obesity and especially type 2 diabetes in adolescents accelerates the early vascular aging process associated with several key risk factors,” wrote Justin R. Ryder, PhD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

The researchers also noted that systolic hypertension was associated with changes in cIMT and arterial stiffness comparable to obesity and diabetes. “These data add further evidence underscoring the importance of efforts targeting prevention and treatment of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and elevated blood pressure among youth, with a goal of delaying and/or preventing the progression of early vascular aging,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote.

Obese patients, when compared with normal-weight participants, had the following average increases: common cIMT by 0.05 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.02 mm, internal cIMT by 0.03 mm, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.38 m/sec, all statistically significant differences. Patients with diabetes, compared with normal-weight participants, registered the following average increases: common cIMT by 0.05 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.06 mm, internal cIMT by 0.04 mm, Aix by 4.67%, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.74 m/sec. All differences were highly significant at P less than .001.

The results also showed that higher baseline systolic blood pressure was associated with significantly greater average increases in the following factors: common cIMT by 0.007 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.009 mm, internal cIMT by 0.008 mm, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.66 m/sec.

Drilling down into the data, the study reported that males had greater increases in bulb cIMT and incremental elastic modulus as well as reduced Aix, compared with females. Nonwhites also had greater increases in bulb cIMT than did whites. Age was associated with greater increases in bulb and internal cIMT and Aix.

“Our data support the concept that male sex is an independent and primary risk factor for accelerated early vascular aging,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote. The study also determined that type 2 diabetes is a more prominent risk factor than obesity for early vascular aging.

The size of the study population, specifically adolescents with diabetes, is a study strength, Dr. Ryder and colleagues noted. Other strengths they pointed to are the 5-year duration and the robust panel of noninvasive measures, although not using hard cardiovascular outcomes is an acknowledged limitation.

“It should also be noted that many of the youth with type 2 diabetes were on medications for glycemic control, lipids, and/or blood pressure regulation,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote. “Despite this, the vascular profiles worsened over time.”

The study showed “a really significant change” in the carotid anatomy in adolescents with obesity and type 2 diabetes over 5 years, Robert Eckel, MD, professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Notably, the PWV is not just anatomy; now we’re talking about function. In other words, the augmentation index and PWV will assess the compliance of the artery.”

The findings suggest that atherosclerosis begins with thickening of the arterial walls. “The question is, is thickness reversible?” Dr. Eckel said. “It’s probably not very reversible, so these are early changes that ultimately in the middle years or latter years are associated with major cardiovascular disease.”

They key lesson from the study, Dr. Eckel noted, is to “prevent obesity. If you prevent obesity in the teenage years, you basically prevent diabetes.”

Dr. Ryder disclosed receiving support from Boehringer Ingelheim in the form of drug/placebo. The National Institutes of Health provided funding. Dr. Eckel has no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Ryder JR et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 May 6:e014891. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014891.

Adolescents with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and systolic hypertension show accelerated development of signs of atherosclerosis significantly greater than their normal-weight peers, according to a longitudinal study published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The study evaluated 448 adolescents over 5 years for changes in a variety of metrics to determine changes in arterial structure, including carotid intima media thickness (cIMT), carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index (Aix). The average age of the study group was 17.6 years. The three study groups broke down accordingly: 141 with normal weight, 156 with obesity, and 151 with type 2 diabetes. Patients were evaluated at baseline and 5 years later.

“The presence of obesity and especially type 2 diabetes in adolescents accelerates the early vascular aging process associated with several key risk factors,” wrote Justin R. Ryder, PhD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

The researchers also noted that systolic hypertension was associated with changes in cIMT and arterial stiffness comparable to obesity and diabetes. “These data add further evidence underscoring the importance of efforts targeting prevention and treatment of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and elevated blood pressure among youth, with a goal of delaying and/or preventing the progression of early vascular aging,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote.

Obese patients, when compared with normal-weight participants, had the following average increases: common cIMT by 0.05 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.02 mm, internal cIMT by 0.03 mm, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.38 m/sec, all statistically significant differences. Patients with diabetes, compared with normal-weight participants, registered the following average increases: common cIMT by 0.05 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.06 mm, internal cIMT by 0.04 mm, Aix by 4.67%, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.74 m/sec. All differences were highly significant at P less than .001.

The results also showed that higher baseline systolic blood pressure was associated with significantly greater average increases in the following factors: common cIMT by 0.007 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.009 mm, internal cIMT by 0.008 mm, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.66 m/sec.

Drilling down into the data, the study reported that males had greater increases in bulb cIMT and incremental elastic modulus as well as reduced Aix, compared with females. Nonwhites also had greater increases in bulb cIMT than did whites. Age was associated with greater increases in bulb and internal cIMT and Aix.

“Our data support the concept that male sex is an independent and primary risk factor for accelerated early vascular aging,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote. The study also determined that type 2 diabetes is a more prominent risk factor than obesity for early vascular aging.

The size of the study population, specifically adolescents with diabetes, is a study strength, Dr. Ryder and colleagues noted. Other strengths they pointed to are the 5-year duration and the robust panel of noninvasive measures, although not using hard cardiovascular outcomes is an acknowledged limitation.

“It should also be noted that many of the youth with type 2 diabetes were on medications for glycemic control, lipids, and/or blood pressure regulation,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote. “Despite this, the vascular profiles worsened over time.”

The study showed “a really significant change” in the carotid anatomy in adolescents with obesity and type 2 diabetes over 5 years, Robert Eckel, MD, professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Notably, the PWV is not just anatomy; now we’re talking about function. In other words, the augmentation index and PWV will assess the compliance of the artery.”

The findings suggest that atherosclerosis begins with thickening of the arterial walls. “The question is, is thickness reversible?” Dr. Eckel said. “It’s probably not very reversible, so these are early changes that ultimately in the middle years or latter years are associated with major cardiovascular disease.”

They key lesson from the study, Dr. Eckel noted, is to “prevent obesity. If you prevent obesity in the teenage years, you basically prevent diabetes.”

Dr. Ryder disclosed receiving support from Boehringer Ingelheim in the form of drug/placebo. The National Institutes of Health provided funding. Dr. Eckel has no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Ryder JR et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 May 6:e014891. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014891.

Adolescents with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and systolic hypertension show accelerated development of signs of atherosclerosis significantly greater than their normal-weight peers, according to a longitudinal study published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The study evaluated 448 adolescents over 5 years for changes in a variety of metrics to determine changes in arterial structure, including carotid intima media thickness (cIMT), carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index (Aix). The average age of the study group was 17.6 years. The three study groups broke down accordingly: 141 with normal weight, 156 with obesity, and 151 with type 2 diabetes. Patients were evaluated at baseline and 5 years later.

“The presence of obesity and especially type 2 diabetes in adolescents accelerates the early vascular aging process associated with several key risk factors,” wrote Justin R. Ryder, PhD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

The researchers also noted that systolic hypertension was associated with changes in cIMT and arterial stiffness comparable to obesity and diabetes. “These data add further evidence underscoring the importance of efforts targeting prevention and treatment of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and elevated blood pressure among youth, with a goal of delaying and/or preventing the progression of early vascular aging,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote.

Obese patients, when compared with normal-weight participants, had the following average increases: common cIMT by 0.05 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.02 mm, internal cIMT by 0.03 mm, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.38 m/sec, all statistically significant differences. Patients with diabetes, compared with normal-weight participants, registered the following average increases: common cIMT by 0.05 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.06 mm, internal cIMT by 0.04 mm, Aix by 4.67%, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.74 m/sec. All differences were highly significant at P less than .001.

The results also showed that higher baseline systolic blood pressure was associated with significantly greater average increases in the following factors: common cIMT by 0.007 mm, bulb cIMT by 0.009 mm, internal cIMT by 0.008 mm, and PWV carotid-femoral by 0.66 m/sec.

Drilling down into the data, the study reported that males had greater increases in bulb cIMT and incremental elastic modulus as well as reduced Aix, compared with females. Nonwhites also had greater increases in bulb cIMT than did whites. Age was associated with greater increases in bulb and internal cIMT and Aix.

“Our data support the concept that male sex is an independent and primary risk factor for accelerated early vascular aging,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote. The study also determined that type 2 diabetes is a more prominent risk factor than obesity for early vascular aging.

The size of the study population, specifically adolescents with diabetes, is a study strength, Dr. Ryder and colleagues noted. Other strengths they pointed to are the 5-year duration and the robust panel of noninvasive measures, although not using hard cardiovascular outcomes is an acknowledged limitation.

“It should also be noted that many of the youth with type 2 diabetes were on medications for glycemic control, lipids, and/or blood pressure regulation,” Dr. Ryder and colleagues wrote. “Despite this, the vascular profiles worsened over time.”

The study showed “a really significant change” in the carotid anatomy in adolescents with obesity and type 2 diabetes over 5 years, Robert Eckel, MD, professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Notably, the PWV is not just anatomy; now we’re talking about function. In other words, the augmentation index and PWV will assess the compliance of the artery.”

The findings suggest that atherosclerosis begins with thickening of the arterial walls. “The question is, is thickness reversible?” Dr. Eckel said. “It’s probably not very reversible, so these are early changes that ultimately in the middle years or latter years are associated with major cardiovascular disease.”

They key lesson from the study, Dr. Eckel noted, is to “prevent obesity. If you prevent obesity in the teenage years, you basically prevent diabetes.”

Dr. Ryder disclosed receiving support from Boehringer Ingelheim in the form of drug/placebo. The National Institutes of Health provided funding. Dr. Eckel has no relevant relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Ryder JR et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 May 6:e014891. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014891.

New guidance is available for managing inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in COVID-19 patients with diabetes using subcutaneous insulin.

“The glycemic management of many COVID-19–positive patients with diabetes is proving extremely complex, with huge fluctuations in glucose control and the need for very high doses of insulin,” says Diabetes UK’s National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team.

“Intravenous infusion pumps, also required for inotropes, are at a premium and there may be the need to consider the use of subcutaneous or intramuscular insulin protocols,” they note.

Updated as of April 29, all of the information of the National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team is available on the Diabetes UK website.

The new inpatient management graphic adds more detail to the previous “front-door” guidance, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The document stressed that, as well as identifying patients with known diabetes, it is imperative that all newly admitted patients with COVID-19 are evaluated for diabetes, as the infection is known to cause new-onset diabetes.
 

Subcutaneous insulin dosing

The new graphic gives extensive details on subcutaneous insulin dosing in place of variable rate intravenous insulin when infusion pumps are not available, and when the patient has a glucose level above 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) but does not have DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.

However, the advice is not intended for people with COVID-19 causing severe insulin resistance in the intensive care unit.

The other new guidance graphic on managing DKA or hyperosmolar state in people with COVID-19 using subcutaneous insulin is also intended for situations where intravenous infusion isn’t available.
 

Seek help from specialist diabetes team when needed

This is not to be used for mixed DKA/hyperosmolar state or for patients who are pregnant, have severe metabolic derangement, other significant comorbidity, or impaired consciousness, however.

For those situations, the advice is to seek help from a specialist diabetes team, says Diabetes UK.

Specialist teams will be available to answer diabetes queries, both by signposting to relevant existing local documents and also by providing patient-specific advice.

Indeed, NHS England recommends that such a team be available in every hospital, with a lead consultant designated each day to co-ordinate these services who must be free of other clinical duties when doing so. The role involves co-ordination of the whole service from the emergency department through to liaison with other specialties and managers.

Also newly updated is a page with extensive information for patients, including advice for staying at home, medication use, self-isolating, shielding, hospital and doctor appointments, need for urgent medical advice, and going to the hospital.

It also covers how coronavirus can affect people with diabetes, children and school, pregnancy, work situations, and tips for picking up prescriptions.

Another, shorter document with COVID-19 advice for patients has been posted by the JDRF and Beyond Type 1 Alliance.

It has also been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, Harvard Medical School, and International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, in partnership with many other professional organizations, including the International Diabetes Federation, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists.

The shorter document covers topics such as personal hygiene, distancing, diabetes management, and seeking treatment, as well as links to other resources on what to do when health insurance is lost and legal rights.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidance is available for managing inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in COVID-19 patients with diabetes using subcutaneous insulin.

“The glycemic management of many COVID-19–positive patients with diabetes is proving extremely complex, with huge fluctuations in glucose control and the need for very high doses of insulin,” says Diabetes UK’s National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team.

“Intravenous infusion pumps, also required for inotropes, are at a premium and there may be the need to consider the use of subcutaneous or intramuscular insulin protocols,” they note.

Updated as of April 29, all of the information of the National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team is available on the Diabetes UK website.

The new inpatient management graphic adds more detail to the previous “front-door” guidance, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The document stressed that, as well as identifying patients with known diabetes, it is imperative that all newly admitted patients with COVID-19 are evaluated for diabetes, as the infection is known to cause new-onset diabetes.
 

Subcutaneous insulin dosing

The new graphic gives extensive details on subcutaneous insulin dosing in place of variable rate intravenous insulin when infusion pumps are not available, and when the patient has a glucose level above 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) but does not have DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.

However, the advice is not intended for people with COVID-19 causing severe insulin resistance in the intensive care unit.

The other new guidance graphic on managing DKA or hyperosmolar state in people with COVID-19 using subcutaneous insulin is also intended for situations where intravenous infusion isn’t available.
 

Seek help from specialist diabetes team when needed

This is not to be used for mixed DKA/hyperosmolar state or for patients who are pregnant, have severe metabolic derangement, other significant comorbidity, or impaired consciousness, however.

For those situations, the advice is to seek help from a specialist diabetes team, says Diabetes UK.

Specialist teams will be available to answer diabetes queries, both by signposting to relevant existing local documents and also by providing patient-specific advice.

Indeed, NHS England recommends that such a team be available in every hospital, with a lead consultant designated each day to co-ordinate these services who must be free of other clinical duties when doing so. The role involves co-ordination of the whole service from the emergency department through to liaison with other specialties and managers.

Also newly updated is a page with extensive information for patients, including advice for staying at home, medication use, self-isolating, shielding, hospital and doctor appointments, need for urgent medical advice, and going to the hospital.

It also covers how coronavirus can affect people with diabetes, children and school, pregnancy, work situations, and tips for picking up prescriptions.

Another, shorter document with COVID-19 advice for patients has been posted by the JDRF and Beyond Type 1 Alliance.

It has also been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, Harvard Medical School, and International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, in partnership with many other professional organizations, including the International Diabetes Federation, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists.

The shorter document covers topics such as personal hygiene, distancing, diabetes management, and seeking treatment, as well as links to other resources on what to do when health insurance is lost and legal rights.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidance is available for managing inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in COVID-19 patients with diabetes using subcutaneous insulin.

“The glycemic management of many COVID-19–positive patients with diabetes is proving extremely complex, with huge fluctuations in glucose control and the need for very high doses of insulin,” says Diabetes UK’s National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team.

“Intravenous infusion pumps, also required for inotropes, are at a premium and there may be the need to consider the use of subcutaneous or intramuscular insulin protocols,” they note.

Updated as of April 29, all of the information of the National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team is available on the Diabetes UK website.

The new inpatient management graphic adds more detail to the previous “front-door” guidance, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The document stressed that, as well as identifying patients with known diabetes, it is imperative that all newly admitted patients with COVID-19 are evaluated for diabetes, as the infection is known to cause new-onset diabetes.
 

Subcutaneous insulin dosing

The new graphic gives extensive details on subcutaneous insulin dosing in place of variable rate intravenous insulin when infusion pumps are not available, and when the patient has a glucose level above 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) but does not have DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.

However, the advice is not intended for people with COVID-19 causing severe insulin resistance in the intensive care unit.

The other new guidance graphic on managing DKA or hyperosmolar state in people with COVID-19 using subcutaneous insulin is also intended for situations where intravenous infusion isn’t available.
 

Seek help from specialist diabetes team when needed

This is not to be used for mixed DKA/hyperosmolar state or for patients who are pregnant, have severe metabolic derangement, other significant comorbidity, or impaired consciousness, however.

For those situations, the advice is to seek help from a specialist diabetes team, says Diabetes UK.

Specialist teams will be available to answer diabetes queries, both by signposting to relevant existing local documents and also by providing patient-specific advice.

Indeed, NHS England recommends that such a team be available in every hospital, with a lead consultant designated each day to co-ordinate these services who must be free of other clinical duties when doing so. The role involves co-ordination of the whole service from the emergency department through to liaison with other specialties and managers.

Also newly updated is a page with extensive information for patients, including advice for staying at home, medication use, self-isolating, shielding, hospital and doctor appointments, need for urgent medical advice, and going to the hospital.

It also covers how coronavirus can affect people with diabetes, children and school, pregnancy, work situations, and tips for picking up prescriptions.

Another, shorter document with COVID-19 advice for patients has been posted by the JDRF and Beyond Type 1 Alliance.

It has also been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, Harvard Medical School, and International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, in partnership with many other professional organizations, including the International Diabetes Federation, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists.

The shorter document covers topics such as personal hygiene, distancing, diabetes management, and seeking treatment, as well as links to other resources on what to do when health insurance is lost and legal rights.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has awarded $1.2 million in grants to teams at 11 institutions to study COVID-19 effects on the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. Work is set to start in June, with findings reported in as few as 6 months. The Cleveland Clinic will coordinate the efforts, collecting and disseminating the findings.

There were more than 750 research proposals in less than a month after the association announced its COVID-19 and Its Cardiovascular Impact Rapid Response Grant initiative.

“We were just blown away and so impressed to see this level of interest and commitment from the teams submitting such thorough proposals so quickly,” AHA President Robert Harrington, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a press statement. “There’s so much we don’t know about this unique coronavirus, and we continue to see emerging complications affecting both heart and brain health for which we desperately need answers and we need them quickly.”

The projects include the following:

• A Comprehensive Assessment of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Complications in Patients with COVID-19, led by Columbia University, New York City.
• Repurposing Drugs for Treatment of Cardiomyopathy Caused by Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), led by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
• Risk of Severe Morbidity and Mortality of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Among Patients Taking Antihypertensive Medications, led by Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
• Deep Learning Using Chest Radiographs to Predict COVID-19 Cardiopulmonary Risk, led by Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
• Cardiovascular Outcomes and Biomarker Titrated Corticosteroid Dosing for SARS COV-2 (COVID-19): A Randomized Controlled Trial, led by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn.
• Outcomes for Patients With Hypertension, Diabetes, and Heart Disease in the Coronavirus Pandemic: Impact of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Treatment, led by Stanford University.
• Rapid COVID-19-on-A-Chip to Screen Competitive Targets for SARS-CoV-2 Spike Binding Sites, led by University of California, Los Angeles.
• COVID-19 Infection, African American Women and Cardiovascular Health, led by University of California, San Francisco.
• Myocardial Virus and Gene Expression in SARS CoV-2 Positive Patients with Clinically Important Myocardial Dysfunction, led by the University of Colorado, Aurora.
• The Role of the Platelet in Mediating Cardiovascular Disease in SARS-CoV-2 Infection, led by the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
• Harnessing Glycomics to Understand Myocardial Injury in COVID-19, led by the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The AHA also awarded $800,000 for short-term projects to members of its new Health Technologies & Innovation Strategically Focused Research Network.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital will assess the use of ejection fraction to triage COVID-19 patients; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, will assess smartphones for “virtual check-in” for stroke symptoms; Stanford will assess digital tracking of COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular complications; and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, will assess a system to track physiological and cardiovascular consequences of the infection.

[email protected]

The American Heart Association (AHA) has awarded $1.2 million in grants to teams at 11 institutions to study COVID-19 effects on the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. Work is set to start in June, with findings reported in as few as 6 months. The Cleveland Clinic will coordinate the efforts, collecting and disseminating the findings.

There were more than 750 research proposals in less than a month after the association announced its COVID-19 and Its Cardiovascular Impact Rapid Response Grant initiative.

“We were just blown away and so impressed to see this level of interest and commitment from the teams submitting such thorough proposals so quickly,” AHA President Robert Harrington, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a press statement. “There’s so much we don’t know about this unique coronavirus, and we continue to see emerging complications affecting both heart and brain health for which we desperately need answers and we need them quickly.”

The projects include the following:

• A Comprehensive Assessment of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Complications in Patients with COVID-19, led by Columbia University, New York City.
• Repurposing Drugs for Treatment of Cardiomyopathy Caused by Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), led by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
• Risk of Severe Morbidity and Mortality of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Among Patients Taking Antihypertensive Medications, led by Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
• Deep Learning Using Chest Radiographs to Predict COVID-19 Cardiopulmonary Risk, led by Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
• Cardiovascular Outcomes and Biomarker Titrated Corticosteroid Dosing for SARS COV-2 (COVID-19): A Randomized Controlled Trial, led by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn.
• Outcomes for Patients With Hypertension, Diabetes, and Heart Disease in the Coronavirus Pandemic: Impact of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Treatment, led by Stanford University.
• Rapid COVID-19-on-A-Chip to Screen Competitive Targets for SARS-CoV-2 Spike Binding Sites, led by University of California, Los Angeles.
• COVID-19 Infection, African American Women and Cardiovascular Health, led by University of California, San Francisco.
• Myocardial Virus and Gene Expression in SARS CoV-2 Positive Patients with Clinically Important Myocardial Dysfunction, led by the University of Colorado, Aurora.
• The Role of the Platelet in Mediating Cardiovascular Disease in SARS-CoV-2 Infection, led by the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
• Harnessing Glycomics to Understand Myocardial Injury in COVID-19, led by the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The AHA also awarded $800,000 for short-term projects to members of its new Health Technologies & Innovation Strategically Focused Research Network.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital will assess the use of ejection fraction to triage COVID-19 patients; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, will assess smartphones for “virtual check-in” for stroke symptoms; Stanford will assess digital tracking of COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular complications; and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, will assess a system to track physiological and cardiovascular consequences of the infection.

[email protected]

The American Heart Association (AHA) has awarded $1.2 million in grants to teams at 11 institutions to study COVID-19 effects on the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. Work is set to start in June, with findings reported in as few as 6 months. The Cleveland Clinic will coordinate the efforts, collecting and disseminating the findings.

There were more than 750 research proposals in less than a month after the association announced its COVID-19 and Its Cardiovascular Impact Rapid Response Grant initiative.

“We were just blown away and so impressed to see this level of interest and commitment from the teams submitting such thorough proposals so quickly,” AHA President Robert Harrington, MD, chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a press statement. “There’s so much we don’t know about this unique coronavirus, and we continue to see emerging complications affecting both heart and brain health for which we desperately need answers and we need them quickly.”

The projects include the following:

• A Comprehensive Assessment of Arterial and Venous Thrombotic Complications in Patients with COVID-19, led by Columbia University, New York City.
• Repurposing Drugs for Treatment of Cardiomyopathy Caused by Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), led by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
• Risk of Severe Morbidity and Mortality of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Among Patients Taking Antihypertensive Medications, led by Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
• Deep Learning Using Chest Radiographs to Predict COVID-19 Cardiopulmonary Risk, led by Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
• Cardiovascular Outcomes and Biomarker Titrated Corticosteroid Dosing for SARS COV-2 (COVID-19): A Randomized Controlled Trial, led by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn.
• Outcomes for Patients With Hypertension, Diabetes, and Heart Disease in the Coronavirus Pandemic: Impact of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Treatment, led by Stanford University.
• Rapid COVID-19-on-A-Chip to Screen Competitive Targets for SARS-CoV-2 Spike Binding Sites, led by University of California, Los Angeles.
• COVID-19 Infection, African American Women and Cardiovascular Health, led by University of California, San Francisco.
• Myocardial Virus and Gene Expression in SARS CoV-2 Positive Patients with Clinically Important Myocardial Dysfunction, led by the University of Colorado, Aurora.
• The Role of the Platelet in Mediating Cardiovascular Disease in SARS-CoV-2 Infection, led by the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.
• Harnessing Glycomics to Understand Myocardial Injury in COVID-19, led by the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The AHA also awarded $800,000 for short-term projects to members of its new Health Technologies & Innovation Strategically Focused Research Network.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital will assess the use of ejection fraction to triage COVID-19 patients; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, will assess smartphones for “virtual check-in” for stroke symptoms; Stanford will assess digital tracking of COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular complications; and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, will assess a system to track physiological and cardiovascular consequences of the infection.

[email protected]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis has concluded that the benefit of statin therapy in the prevention of ischemic stroke “greatly exceeds” the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The meta-analysis was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Coauthor Abhi Pandhi, MD, the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, explained that some previous studies have suggested that statin therapy may be associated with an increased risk for ICH, especially at higher doses. Other studies, however, have failed to confirm this and have shown an increase in cardiovascular events if statins are stopped.

To look further into this issue, Dr. Pandhi and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 19 clinical studies involving patients who had a history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events and who had been treated with statins. A total of 35,842 patients were included.

Results showed that statin use was not significantly associated with the risk for combined primary and secondary ICH (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.08). But the risk for cerebral ischemia (stroke and transient ischemic attack) was significantly lower in those who received statins (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61–0.87).

“Overall, we found no effect of statins on the risk of ICH, and benefits on reducing ischemic events are clear,” Dr. Pandhi said.
 

Increased secondary ICH?

However, a sensitivity analysis showed a trend toward a higher risk for secondary ICH among those who were assigned to statin treatment (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91–3.86).

“While this may suggest an increased risk of secondary ICH, when we look at the big picture, putting all the data together, and given that ischemic events are far more common than ICH, the risk of stopping statins and losing the protection against ischemic events is probably greater than any harm even in patients with underlying risk factors for ICH,” Dr. Pandhi concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Szarek, PhD, who has also conducted research in this field, said: “The results of this meta-analysis appear to be consistent with individual randomized trials of statins in patients with cerebrovascular disease that have shown clear benefit in terms of ischemic stroke or TIA and potential harm in terms of hemorrhagic stroke.”

Dr. Szarek is chair and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, New York City.

“However, the much greater frequency of ischemic events, coupled with benefits in coronary and peripheral vascular territories, suggest the risk/benefit of statin treatment remains favorable in this patient population, with the possible exception of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke,” he added.

Also commenting on this latest meta-analysis, Pamela Rist, ScD, associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has also authored studies in this area, said the results of this study seem similar to prior results from meta-analyses of clinical trials.

“It will be interesting to see the full manuscript to learn more about the sensitivity analyses they conducted and why they may have observed a nonsignificant increased risk of secondary ICH among some individuals using statins,” Dr. Rist added.

“Based on prior published meta-analyses of statin use and ICH, any potential increase in risk of hemorrhagic stroke is probably outweighed by the reduction in ischemic stroke and other cardiovascular events,” she concluded.

Dr. Pandhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Ishfaq A et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S9.010.

A new meta-analysis has concluded that the benefit of statin therapy in the prevention of ischemic stroke “greatly exceeds” the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The meta-analysis was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Coauthor Abhi Pandhi, MD, the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, explained that some previous studies have suggested that statin therapy may be associated with an increased risk for ICH, especially at higher doses. Other studies, however, have failed to confirm this and have shown an increase in cardiovascular events if statins are stopped.

To look further into this issue, Dr. Pandhi and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 19 clinical studies involving patients who had a history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events and who had been treated with statins. A total of 35,842 patients were included.

Results showed that statin use was not significantly associated with the risk for combined primary and secondary ICH (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.08). But the risk for cerebral ischemia (stroke and transient ischemic attack) was significantly lower in those who received statins (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61–0.87).

“Overall, we found no effect of statins on the risk of ICH, and benefits on reducing ischemic events are clear,” Dr. Pandhi said.
 

Increased secondary ICH?

However, a sensitivity analysis showed a trend toward a higher risk for secondary ICH among those who were assigned to statin treatment (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91–3.86).

“While this may suggest an increased risk of secondary ICH, when we look at the big picture, putting all the data together, and given that ischemic events are far more common than ICH, the risk of stopping statins and losing the protection against ischemic events is probably greater than any harm even in patients with underlying risk factors for ICH,” Dr. Pandhi concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Szarek, PhD, who has also conducted research in this field, said: “The results of this meta-analysis appear to be consistent with individual randomized trials of statins in patients with cerebrovascular disease that have shown clear benefit in terms of ischemic stroke or TIA and potential harm in terms of hemorrhagic stroke.”

Dr. Szarek is chair and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, New York City.

“However, the much greater frequency of ischemic events, coupled with benefits in coronary and peripheral vascular territories, suggest the risk/benefit of statin treatment remains favorable in this patient population, with the possible exception of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke,” he added.

Also commenting on this latest meta-analysis, Pamela Rist, ScD, associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has also authored studies in this area, said the results of this study seem similar to prior results from meta-analyses of clinical trials.

“It will be interesting to see the full manuscript to learn more about the sensitivity analyses they conducted and why they may have observed a nonsignificant increased risk of secondary ICH among some individuals using statins,” Dr. Rist added.

“Based on prior published meta-analyses of statin use and ICH, any potential increase in risk of hemorrhagic stroke is probably outweighed by the reduction in ischemic stroke and other cardiovascular events,” she concluded.

Dr. Pandhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Ishfaq A et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S9.010.

A new meta-analysis has concluded that the benefit of statin therapy in the prevention of ischemic stroke “greatly exceeds” the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The meta-analysis was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Coauthor Abhi Pandhi, MD, the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, explained that some previous studies have suggested that statin therapy may be associated with an increased risk for ICH, especially at higher doses. Other studies, however, have failed to confirm this and have shown an increase in cardiovascular events if statins are stopped.

To look further into this issue, Dr. Pandhi and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 19 clinical studies involving patients who had a history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events and who had been treated with statins. A total of 35,842 patients were included.

Results showed that statin use was not significantly associated with the risk for combined primary and secondary ICH (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.08). But the risk for cerebral ischemia (stroke and transient ischemic attack) was significantly lower in those who received statins (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61–0.87).

“Overall, we found no effect of statins on the risk of ICH, and benefits on reducing ischemic events are clear,” Dr. Pandhi said.
 

Increased secondary ICH?

However, a sensitivity analysis showed a trend toward a higher risk for secondary ICH among those who were assigned to statin treatment (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91–3.86).

“While this may suggest an increased risk of secondary ICH, when we look at the big picture, putting all the data together, and given that ischemic events are far more common than ICH, the risk of stopping statins and losing the protection against ischemic events is probably greater than any harm even in patients with underlying risk factors for ICH,” Dr. Pandhi concluded.

Commenting on the study, Michael Szarek, PhD, who has also conducted research in this field, said: “The results of this meta-analysis appear to be consistent with individual randomized trials of statins in patients with cerebrovascular disease that have shown clear benefit in terms of ischemic stroke or TIA and potential harm in terms of hemorrhagic stroke.”

Dr. Szarek is chair and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, New York City.

“However, the much greater frequency of ischemic events, coupled with benefits in coronary and peripheral vascular territories, suggest the risk/benefit of statin treatment remains favorable in this patient population, with the possible exception of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke,” he added.

Also commenting on this latest meta-analysis, Pamela Rist, ScD, associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has also authored studies in this area, said the results of this study seem similar to prior results from meta-analyses of clinical trials.

“It will be interesting to see the full manuscript to learn more about the sensitivity analyses they conducted and why they may have observed a nonsignificant increased risk of secondary ICH among some individuals using statins,” Dr. Rist added.

“Based on prior published meta-analyses of statin use and ICH, any potential increase in risk of hemorrhagic stroke is probably outweighed by the reduction in ischemic stroke and other cardiovascular events,” she concluded.

Dr. Pandhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Ishfaq A et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S9.010.