Cardiology News

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

Clinicians are working out how to manage patients with or suspected of having COVID-19. Here’s what several physicians have told Medscape Medical News about how they’re treating COVID-19 cases now.

“Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve been preparing for the oncoming onslaught of patients,” said Lillian Wu, MD, of the HealthPoint network in the Seattle area of greater King County and president elect of the Washington Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Step One: Triage

The first step, Wu says, is careful triage.

When patients call one of the 17 clinics in the HealthPoint system, nurses gauge how sick they are. High fever? Shortness of breath? Do they have a chronic illness, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or a lung condition, that increases risk for infection and complications?

“If a patient has mild symptoms, we ask them to stay home or to check back in 24 hours, or we’ll reach out to them. For moderate symptoms, we ask them to come in, and [we] clearly mark on the schedule that it is a respiratory patient, who will be sent to a separate area. If the patient is severe, we don’t even see them and send them directly to the hospital to the ER,” Wu told Medscape Medical News.

These categories parallel the World Health Organization’s designations of uncomplicated illness, mild pneumonia, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and septic shock. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises case by case regarding decisions as to outpatient or inpatient assignment.

“Patients who pass the initial phone triage are given masks, separated, and sent to different parts of the clinic or are required to wait in their cars until it’s time to be seen,” Wu said.
 

Step 2: Hospital Arrival

Once at the hospital, the CDC’s interim guidance kicks in.

“Any patient with fever, cough, and shortness of breath presenting with a history of travel to countries with high ongoing transmission or a credible history of exposure should be promptly evaluated for COVID-19,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director, Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV; chair in infection prevention, Summit Health; and clinical assistant professor of medicine, Penn State School of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“We recommend obtaining baseline CBC with differential, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, and procalcitonin. Clues for COVID-19 include leukopenia, seen in 30% to 45% of patients, and lymphocytopenia, seen in 85% of the patients in the case series from China,” Tirupathi said. He uses a respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction panel to rule out other pathogens.

Wu concurs. “This is the one time we are grateful when someone tests positive for the flu! If flu is negative and other common respiratory infections are negative, then we do a COVID-19 test,” she said.

But test results may be delayed. “At the University of Washington, it takes 8 hours, but commercial labs take up to 4 days,” Wu said. All patients with respiratory symptoms are treated as persons under investigation, for whom isolation precautions are required. In addition, for these patients, use of personal protective equipment by caregivers is required.

For suspected pneumonia, the American College of Radiography recommends chest CT to identify peripheral basal ground-glass opacities characteristic of COVID-19.

However, diagnosis should be based on detection of SARS-CoV-2, because chest images for COVID-19 are nonspecific – associated signs can also be seen in H1N1 influenza, SARS, and MERS.
 

Step 3: Supportive Care

Once a patient is admitted, supportive care entails “maintaining fluid status and nutrition and supporting physiological functions until we heal. It’s treating complications and organ support, whether that means providing supplementary oxygen all the way to ventilator support, and just waiting it out. If a patient progresses to acute respiratory distress syndrome, it becomes tougher,” said David Liebers, MD, chief medical officer and an infectious disease specialist at Ellis Medicine in Schenectady, New York.

Efforts are ramping up to develop therapeutics. Remdesivir, an investigational antiviral drug developed to treat Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers, shows activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.

Remdesivir has been used in a few patients on a compassionate-use basis outside of a clinical trial setting. “It’s a nucleotide analogue, and like other drugs of that class, it disrupts nucleic acid production. Some data suggest that it might have some efficacy,” Liebers said.

Antibiotics are reserved for patients suspected of having concomitant bacterial or fungal infections. Liebers said clinicians should be alerted to “the big three” signs of secondary infection – fever, elevated white blood cell count, and lactic acidosis. Immunosuppressed patients are at elevated risk for secondary infection.
 

Step 4: Managing Complications

Patients do die of COVID-19, mostly through an inability to ventilate, even when supported with oxygen, Liebers told Medscape Medical News. (According to Tirupathi, “The studies from China indicate that from 6%-10% of patients needed ventilators.”)

Liebers continued, “Others may develop sepsis or a syndrome of multisystem organ failure with renal and endothelial collapse, making it difficult to maintain blood pressure. Like with so many pathologies, it is a vicious circle in which everything gets overworked. Off-and-on treatments can sometimes break the cycle: supplementary oxygen, giving red blood cells, dialysis. We support those functions while waiting for healing to occur.”

A facility’s airborne-infection isolation rooms may become filled to capacity, but that isn’t critical, Liebers said. “Airborne precautions are standard to contain measles, tuberculosis, chickenpox, and herpes zoster, in which very small particles spread in the air,” he said.

Consensus is growing that SARS-CoV-2 spreads in large droplets, he added. Private rooms and closed doors may suffice.
 

Step 5: Discharge

Liebers said that as of now, the million-dollar question regards criteria for discharge.

Patients who clinically improve are sent home with instructions to remain in isolation. They may be tested again for virus before or after discharge.

Liebers and Wu pointed to the experience at EvergreenHealth Medical Center, in Kirkland, Washington, as guidance from the trenches. “They’re the ones who are learning firsthand and passing the experience along to everyone else,” Wu said.

“The situation is unprecedented,” said Liebers, who, like many others, has barely slept these past weeks. “We’re swimming in murky water right now.”

The epidemic in the United States is still months from peaking, Wu emphasized. “There is no vaccine, and many cases are subclinical. COVID-19 has to spread through the country before it infects a critical mass of people who will develop immunity. It’s too late to contain.”

Added Liebers, “It’s a constantly changing situation, and we are still being surprised – not that this wasn’t predicted.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

Clinicians are working out how to manage patients with or suspected of having COVID-19. Here’s what several physicians have told Medscape Medical News about how they’re treating COVID-19 cases now.

“Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve been preparing for the oncoming onslaught of patients,” said Lillian Wu, MD, of the HealthPoint network in the Seattle area of greater King County and president elect of the Washington Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Step One: Triage

The first step, Wu says, is careful triage.

When patients call one of the 17 clinics in the HealthPoint system, nurses gauge how sick they are. High fever? Shortness of breath? Do they have a chronic illness, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or a lung condition, that increases risk for infection and complications?

“If a patient has mild symptoms, we ask them to stay home or to check back in 24 hours, or we’ll reach out to them. For moderate symptoms, we ask them to come in, and [we] clearly mark on the schedule that it is a respiratory patient, who will be sent to a separate area. If the patient is severe, we don’t even see them and send them directly to the hospital to the ER,” Wu told Medscape Medical News.

These categories parallel the World Health Organization’s designations of uncomplicated illness, mild pneumonia, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and septic shock. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises case by case regarding decisions as to outpatient or inpatient assignment.

“Patients who pass the initial phone triage are given masks, separated, and sent to different parts of the clinic or are required to wait in their cars until it’s time to be seen,” Wu said.
 

Step 2: Hospital Arrival

Once at the hospital, the CDC’s interim guidance kicks in.

“Any patient with fever, cough, and shortness of breath presenting with a history of travel to countries with high ongoing transmission or a credible history of exposure should be promptly evaluated for COVID-19,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director, Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV; chair in infection prevention, Summit Health; and clinical assistant professor of medicine, Penn State School of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“We recommend obtaining baseline CBC with differential, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, and procalcitonin. Clues for COVID-19 include leukopenia, seen in 30% to 45% of patients, and lymphocytopenia, seen in 85% of the patients in the case series from China,” Tirupathi said. He uses a respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction panel to rule out other pathogens.

Wu concurs. “This is the one time we are grateful when someone tests positive for the flu! If flu is negative and other common respiratory infections are negative, then we do a COVID-19 test,” she said.

But test results may be delayed. “At the University of Washington, it takes 8 hours, but commercial labs take up to 4 days,” Wu said. All patients with respiratory symptoms are treated as persons under investigation, for whom isolation precautions are required. In addition, for these patients, use of personal protective equipment by caregivers is required.

For suspected pneumonia, the American College of Radiography recommends chest CT to identify peripheral basal ground-glass opacities characteristic of COVID-19.

However, diagnosis should be based on detection of SARS-CoV-2, because chest images for COVID-19 are nonspecific – associated signs can also be seen in H1N1 influenza, SARS, and MERS.
 

Step 3: Supportive Care

Once a patient is admitted, supportive care entails “maintaining fluid status and nutrition and supporting physiological functions until we heal. It’s treating complications and organ support, whether that means providing supplementary oxygen all the way to ventilator support, and just waiting it out. If a patient progresses to acute respiratory distress syndrome, it becomes tougher,” said David Liebers, MD, chief medical officer and an infectious disease specialist at Ellis Medicine in Schenectady, New York.

Efforts are ramping up to develop therapeutics. Remdesivir, an investigational antiviral drug developed to treat Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers, shows activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.

Remdesivir has been used in a few patients on a compassionate-use basis outside of a clinical trial setting. “It’s a nucleotide analogue, and like other drugs of that class, it disrupts nucleic acid production. Some data suggest that it might have some efficacy,” Liebers said.

Antibiotics are reserved for patients suspected of having concomitant bacterial or fungal infections. Liebers said clinicians should be alerted to “the big three” signs of secondary infection – fever, elevated white blood cell count, and lactic acidosis. Immunosuppressed patients are at elevated risk for secondary infection.
 

Step 4: Managing Complications

Patients do die of COVID-19, mostly through an inability to ventilate, even when supported with oxygen, Liebers told Medscape Medical News. (According to Tirupathi, “The studies from China indicate that from 6%-10% of patients needed ventilators.”)

Liebers continued, “Others may develop sepsis or a syndrome of multisystem organ failure with renal and endothelial collapse, making it difficult to maintain blood pressure. Like with so many pathologies, it is a vicious circle in which everything gets overworked. Off-and-on treatments can sometimes break the cycle: supplementary oxygen, giving red blood cells, dialysis. We support those functions while waiting for healing to occur.”

A facility’s airborne-infection isolation rooms may become filled to capacity, but that isn’t critical, Liebers said. “Airborne precautions are standard to contain measles, tuberculosis, chickenpox, and herpes zoster, in which very small particles spread in the air,” he said.

Consensus is growing that SARS-CoV-2 spreads in large droplets, he added. Private rooms and closed doors may suffice.
 

Step 5: Discharge

Liebers said that as of now, the million-dollar question regards criteria for discharge.

Patients who clinically improve are sent home with instructions to remain in isolation. They may be tested again for virus before or after discharge.

Liebers and Wu pointed to the experience at EvergreenHealth Medical Center, in Kirkland, Washington, as guidance from the trenches. “They’re the ones who are learning firsthand and passing the experience along to everyone else,” Wu said.

“The situation is unprecedented,” said Liebers, who, like many others, has barely slept these past weeks. “We’re swimming in murky water right now.”

The epidemic in the United States is still months from peaking, Wu emphasized. “There is no vaccine, and many cases are subclinical. COVID-19 has to spread through the country before it infects a critical mass of people who will develop immunity. It’s too late to contain.”

Added Liebers, “It’s a constantly changing situation, and we are still being surprised – not that this wasn’t predicted.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

Clinicians are working out how to manage patients with or suspected of having COVID-19. Here’s what several physicians have told Medscape Medical News about how they’re treating COVID-19 cases now.

“Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve been preparing for the oncoming onslaught of patients,” said Lillian Wu, MD, of the HealthPoint network in the Seattle area of greater King County and president elect of the Washington Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Step One: Triage

The first step, Wu says, is careful triage.

When patients call one of the 17 clinics in the HealthPoint system, nurses gauge how sick they are. High fever? Shortness of breath? Do they have a chronic illness, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or a lung condition, that increases risk for infection and complications?

“If a patient has mild symptoms, we ask them to stay home or to check back in 24 hours, or we’ll reach out to them. For moderate symptoms, we ask them to come in, and [we] clearly mark on the schedule that it is a respiratory patient, who will be sent to a separate area. If the patient is severe, we don’t even see them and send them directly to the hospital to the ER,” Wu told Medscape Medical News.

These categories parallel the World Health Organization’s designations of uncomplicated illness, mild pneumonia, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and septic shock. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises case by case regarding decisions as to outpatient or inpatient assignment.

“Patients who pass the initial phone triage are given masks, separated, and sent to different parts of the clinic or are required to wait in their cars until it’s time to be seen,” Wu said.
 

Step 2: Hospital Arrival

Once at the hospital, the CDC’s interim guidance kicks in.

“Any patient with fever, cough, and shortness of breath presenting with a history of travel to countries with high ongoing transmission or a credible history of exposure should be promptly evaluated for COVID-19,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director, Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV; chair in infection prevention, Summit Health; and clinical assistant professor of medicine, Penn State School of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

“We recommend obtaining baseline CBC with differential, basic metabolic panel, liver function tests, and procalcitonin. Clues for COVID-19 include leukopenia, seen in 30% to 45% of patients, and lymphocytopenia, seen in 85% of the patients in the case series from China,” Tirupathi said. He uses a respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction panel to rule out other pathogens.

Wu concurs. “This is the one time we are grateful when someone tests positive for the flu! If flu is negative and other common respiratory infections are negative, then we do a COVID-19 test,” she said.

But test results may be delayed. “At the University of Washington, it takes 8 hours, but commercial labs take up to 4 days,” Wu said. All patients with respiratory symptoms are treated as persons under investigation, for whom isolation precautions are required. In addition, for these patients, use of personal protective equipment by caregivers is required.

For suspected pneumonia, the American College of Radiography recommends chest CT to identify peripheral basal ground-glass opacities characteristic of COVID-19.

However, diagnosis should be based on detection of SARS-CoV-2, because chest images for COVID-19 are nonspecific – associated signs can also be seen in H1N1 influenza, SARS, and MERS.
 

Step 3: Supportive Care

Once a patient is admitted, supportive care entails “maintaining fluid status and nutrition and supporting physiological functions until we heal. It’s treating complications and organ support, whether that means providing supplementary oxygen all the way to ventilator support, and just waiting it out. If a patient progresses to acute respiratory distress syndrome, it becomes tougher,” said David Liebers, MD, chief medical officer and an infectious disease specialist at Ellis Medicine in Schenectady, New York.

Efforts are ramping up to develop therapeutics. Remdesivir, an investigational antiviral drug developed to treat Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers, shows activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.

Remdesivir has been used in a few patients on a compassionate-use basis outside of a clinical trial setting. “It’s a nucleotide analogue, and like other drugs of that class, it disrupts nucleic acid production. Some data suggest that it might have some efficacy,” Liebers said.

Antibiotics are reserved for patients suspected of having concomitant bacterial or fungal infections. Liebers said clinicians should be alerted to “the big three” signs of secondary infection – fever, elevated white blood cell count, and lactic acidosis. Immunosuppressed patients are at elevated risk for secondary infection.
 

Step 4: Managing Complications

Patients do die of COVID-19, mostly through an inability to ventilate, even when supported with oxygen, Liebers told Medscape Medical News. (According to Tirupathi, “The studies from China indicate that from 6%-10% of patients needed ventilators.”)

Liebers continued, “Others may develop sepsis or a syndrome of multisystem organ failure with renal and endothelial collapse, making it difficult to maintain blood pressure. Like with so many pathologies, it is a vicious circle in which everything gets overworked. Off-and-on treatments can sometimes break the cycle: supplementary oxygen, giving red blood cells, dialysis. We support those functions while waiting for healing to occur.”

A facility’s airborne-infection isolation rooms may become filled to capacity, but that isn’t critical, Liebers said. “Airborne precautions are standard to contain measles, tuberculosis, chickenpox, and herpes zoster, in which very small particles spread in the air,” he said.

Consensus is growing that SARS-CoV-2 spreads in large droplets, he added. Private rooms and closed doors may suffice.
 

Step 5: Discharge

Liebers said that as of now, the million-dollar question regards criteria for discharge.

Patients who clinically improve are sent home with instructions to remain in isolation. They may be tested again for virus before or after discharge.

Liebers and Wu pointed to the experience at EvergreenHealth Medical Center, in Kirkland, Washington, as guidance from the trenches. “They’re the ones who are learning firsthand and passing the experience along to everyone else,” Wu said.

“The situation is unprecedented,” said Liebers, who, like many others, has barely slept these past weeks. “We’re swimming in murky water right now.”

The epidemic in the United States is still months from peaking, Wu emphasized. “There is no vaccine, and many cases are subclinical. COVID-19 has to spread through the country before it infects a critical mass of people who will develop immunity. It’s too late to contain.”

Added Liebers, “It’s a constantly changing situation, and we are still being surprised – not that this wasn’t predicted.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

[email protected]

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

[email protected]

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

Khadija Hafidh, MD, was already booked on a 14-hour, direct flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, when the American College of Physicians (ACP) announced it was canceling its internal medicine meeting scheduled for April.

Canceling her hotel reservation was not a problem, and she was assured a refund for the conference fee, but her airline ticket was another matter, said Dr. Hafidh, an internist and diabetologist with the Dubai Health Authority.

“The airline I booked my ticket with is willing to waive the change fees, but will deduct a cancellation fee if I choose not to take the trip,” Dr. Hafidh said in an interview. “The cancellation fees is $300. A bit steep I must admit.”

Dr. Hafidh now faces a dilemma: Lose the $300 and cancel, or change her flight dates to June for the American Diabetes Association meeting in Chicago.

“But then again, we aren’t sure if that meeting will take place,” Dr. Hafidh said. “A few weeks ago I thought this whole thing was just a storm in a tea cup. However when it was declared a pandemic yesterday, it brought about another dimension.”

More than 25 medical meetings and conferences across the globe have been canceled or postponed because of COVID-19 concerns. The sudden cancellations have caused reservation woes and travel headaches for thousands of physicians who planned to attend the meetings. Some societies are considering the idea of virtual conferences, while other associations have scrapped their meetings until next year.

For physicians facing a canceled conference, the most likely question is, what now? Read on for tips and suggestions.
 

Reservation refunds vary

Refunds on airfare because of conference cancellations differ, depending on the airline and where you were traveling. Some airlines, such as United Airlines, have waived all change fees for tickets issued March 3, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and passengers can change their dates for up to 12 months after the ticket was issued.

Full refunds often depend on whether your ticket was nonrefundable when purchased. Many airlines, such as Delta, are providing full refunds if the airline canceled your flight. JetBlue is waiving all change and cancellation fees for customers scheduled to travel March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

Las Vegas–based dermatologist H.L. Greenberg, MD, was satisfied with the credit he received from Southwest Airlines after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) canceled its Denver meeting. He and his staff were looking forward to the gathering, but he noted that the meeting would likely have been limited, even if it had take place as scheduled.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to meet with colleagues and industry to explore what the latest advances and interests are in dermatology,” he said. “Because many academic institutions were forbidding their faculty from traveling, the content of the meeting was going to be severely diminished. It’s just a rough time for everyone.”

Meanwhile, Asa Radix, MD, PhD, a New York–based internist, received a full refund for his Amtrak ticket to Boston when the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) scheduled for early March was converted to a virtual meeting. Dr. Radix, senior director of research and education at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York, left another meeting in Brazil early to get to the Boston conference, he said.

“I was packed, but really that was a minor inconvenience,” he said in an interview. “I appreciate that they prioritized health concerns and changed to a virtual meeting. I received full refunds, no issues whatsoever. [It was] really great since I had no travel insurance.”

Check with your individual airline or train line for information about ticket refunds and credits. Many airlines are currently making special accommodations because of COVID-19. If your flight was covered by trip insurance, also called travel assistance, you are generally protected against unforeseen financial losses such as cancellations. The U.S. Department of Transportation provides this general online resource about airline refunds.
 

Hotel refunds probable

Most meeting organizations who have made the decision to cancel or postpone a conference also have canceled block hotel reservations reserved for the meeting. Medical associations are not directly refunding the hotel costs, but the majority of hotels are refunding reservations with no questions asked. Physicians interviewed for this story all reported no trouble getting refunds for their hotel reservations. However, attendees who did not book a hotel in official housing blocks should contact the hotel directly to cancel.

What about registration fees?

In response to COVID-19 cancellations, most conference leaders are refunding registration fees in full for both attendees and exhibitors. The refund may not be automatic, some associations such as ACP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state it may take up to 45 days for the funds to be credited, depending on the payment used.

If the conference you planned to attend was postponed, the registration fee may be assigned to the new meeting dates and the money may not be refunded. Registration fees for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium, for example, delayed until an unconfirmed date, and for the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting, postponed until July, will be automatically credited to the rescheduled meeting, according to the websites. If attendees cannot attend the rescheduled EAU meeting, the association will not provide a refund and the registration will not apply to the 2021 meeting, according to its website. However, the group is providing registrants with a free access code for the EAU20 Resource Centre, which contains websites of sessions and scientific content.

A number of physicians have expressed disappointment with the EAU’s postponement on social media. On Twitter, some doctors wrote that the rescheduled dates were bad timing, while others lamented the refund refusal.

The EAU said it regrets that some delegates will experience financial losses, but that the organization has already experienced a significant outlay that cannot be recovered including venue, logistics, travel, and accommodation costs.  

"We are doing what we can to absorb costs, but we need to be realistic about what is affordable; should the organization have to refund all or even most registrations, it would significantly jeopardize the viability of the organization," the EAU said in a statement.  "These are difficult times, not only for the EAU, but on a global scale. Where there are specific cases of hardship or very extenuating financial circumstances, we will be willing to review individual cases. So far, we believe that we have done what we can do to meet the conflicting demands presented by the postponement of the congress, but this is a situation which changes from day to day, and we need to continuously evaluate what might be the best course of action." * 

Contact your medical association directly for details on postponements.
 

What if I’m a presenter?

In an attempt to save the hard work and time that planners and presenters have invested into now-canceled meetings, some conferences are moving to a digital format. The Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) was the first to convert its in-person conference to a virtual meeting, held from March 8 to 11, 2020. At-home attendees logged onto CROI’s digital platform to hear plenaries, oral abstracts, themed discussion sessions, and symposia.

Dr. Radix was one of many CROI speakers who changed his presentation on HIV prevalence among transgender men to a virtual format.

“We were provided with detailed instructions from CROI about how to do this,” said Dr. Radix, who tweeted about the experience. “For my presentation, I used the video option in PowerPoint; it seemed the most straightforward and didn’t require buying additional software. It was fairly easy to follow the instructions to create the video but it was disappointing to present to an empty room.”

Matthew Spinelli, MD, an HIV researcher with the University of California, San Francisco, who also presented virtually, said it was remarkable that CROI leaders were able to put together the virtual program in such a short time. He delivered his presentation on the accuracy of a real-time urine tenofovir test using PowerPoint and a podcast microphone.

“It seemed to work pretty well,” he said in an interview. “It’s not the same as being there in person, there’s a lot of networking and chance conversations that happen when you’re all in the same place, but it was the right decision to cancel. If I have to be at home or at work doing social distancing, this was the best possible way of doing it.”

Following in CROI’s footsteps, the National Kidney Foundation’s spring conference has moved to a live virtual conference. The 2020 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) global health conference also will move to a digital format. Other societies are considering similar virtual options. Check with your meeting website for more details on digital options and attendee access.

[email protected]

*The article was updated on 03/16/2020.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – In a pooled analysis of three trials conducted with the transcatheter Carillon Mitral Contour System for mitral valve repair, the 5-year survival is 56.2%, which is an encouraging outcome that justifies the ongoing multinational pivotal Carillon trial, according to the principal investigator of the analysis presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

In patients with functional mitral valve regurgitation (FMR), “the Carillon device shows extremely encouraging long-term mortality data from prospective controlled trials in comparison with guideline-directed medical therapy or with the COAPT results,” according to Janusz Lipiecki, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

The COAPT trial is an important benchmark, because it was the first large, randomized trial to show benefit for a percutaneous device in the treatment of heart failure patients with moderate to severe FMR (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2307-18). The study associated the MitraClip with a nearly 40% reduction in all-cause mortality (29.1% vs. 46.1%) at 24 months, relative to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The Carillon device, which is also delivered percutaneously, does not engage the valve leaflets to treat FMR. Rather, it is anchored in coronary sinus to reform the mitral annulus. This reduces FMR without damage to the mitral valve, thus preserving the potential for future valve repairs, according to Dr. Lipiecki, who reported that more than 1,100 devices have now been implanted, mostly in Europe.

The data so far are encouraging, said Dr. Lipiecki, who provided survival data in 74 patients followed for at least 5 years. Of these, 23 were drawn from the REDUCE FMR trial, which was blinded and sham controlled, and the remainder from the TITAN and TITAN II studies, which were prospective but not controlled.

In this series of 74 patients, there were no serious complications associated with the procedure, and all achieved a reduction in mitral regurgitation at 12 months, Dr. Lipiecki said. Furthermore, the reduction in FMR was associated with improvements in symptoms and “favorable remodeling” reflected in reduced left ventricular volume, he said.

In this series, the 5-year survival is 56%, which substantially exceeds what would be expected with GDMT, according to Dr. Lipiecki.

There were no baseline predictors of long-term survival, but improvements within the 6 months in functional heart class, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mitral regurgitation were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of being alive at 5 years.

Although there is no comparable follow-up with other devices, including the MitraClip, Dr. Lipiecki did compare the 67.9% survival at 3 years in this series to that of the COAPT trial. He restricted the comparison to those treated for grade 3+ or 4+ mitral regurgitation. At 36 months, survival rates were 57.2% and 44.5% for those treated with MitraClip and GDMT, respectively.

“COAPT patients might not be comparable for a variety of reasons, including the anatomic restrictions important to the use of either of these devices,” Dr. Lipiecki acknowledged, but he said the long-term data with the Carillon device provide support for the pivotal Carillon trial now enrolling.

In this blinded trial, more than 350 patients at 75 sites are being randomized to placement of the Carillon device, which has been available in Europe since 2011, or a sham procedure. The trial is scheduled for completion in 2025.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – In a pooled analysis of three trials conducted with the transcatheter Carillon Mitral Contour System for mitral valve repair, the 5-year survival is 56.2%, which is an encouraging outcome that justifies the ongoing multinational pivotal Carillon trial, according to the principal investigator of the analysis presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

In patients with functional mitral valve regurgitation (FMR), “the Carillon device shows extremely encouraging long-term mortality data from prospective controlled trials in comparison with guideline-directed medical therapy or with the COAPT results,” according to Janusz Lipiecki, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

The COAPT trial is an important benchmark, because it was the first large, randomized trial to show benefit for a percutaneous device in the treatment of heart failure patients with moderate to severe FMR (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2307-18). The study associated the MitraClip with a nearly 40% reduction in all-cause mortality (29.1% vs. 46.1%) at 24 months, relative to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The Carillon device, which is also delivered percutaneously, does not engage the valve leaflets to treat FMR. Rather, it is anchored in coronary sinus to reform the mitral annulus. This reduces FMR without damage to the mitral valve, thus preserving the potential for future valve repairs, according to Dr. Lipiecki, who reported that more than 1,100 devices have now been implanted, mostly in Europe.

The data so far are encouraging, said Dr. Lipiecki, who provided survival data in 74 patients followed for at least 5 years. Of these, 23 were drawn from the REDUCE FMR trial, which was blinded and sham controlled, and the remainder from the TITAN and TITAN II studies, which were prospective but not controlled.

In this series of 74 patients, there were no serious complications associated with the procedure, and all achieved a reduction in mitral regurgitation at 12 months, Dr. Lipiecki said. Furthermore, the reduction in FMR was associated with improvements in symptoms and “favorable remodeling” reflected in reduced left ventricular volume, he said.

In this series, the 5-year survival is 56%, which substantially exceeds what would be expected with GDMT, according to Dr. Lipiecki.

There were no baseline predictors of long-term survival, but improvements within the 6 months in functional heart class, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mitral regurgitation were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of being alive at 5 years.

Although there is no comparable follow-up with other devices, including the MitraClip, Dr. Lipiecki did compare the 67.9% survival at 3 years in this series to that of the COAPT trial. He restricted the comparison to those treated for grade 3+ or 4+ mitral regurgitation. At 36 months, survival rates were 57.2% and 44.5% for those treated with MitraClip and GDMT, respectively.

“COAPT patients might not be comparable for a variety of reasons, including the anatomic restrictions important to the use of either of these devices,” Dr. Lipiecki acknowledged, but he said the long-term data with the Carillon device provide support for the pivotal Carillon trial now enrolling.

In this blinded trial, more than 350 patients at 75 sites are being randomized to placement of the Carillon device, which has been available in Europe since 2011, or a sham procedure. The trial is scheduled for completion in 2025.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – In a pooled analysis of three trials conducted with the transcatheter Carillon Mitral Contour System for mitral valve repair, the 5-year survival is 56.2%, which is an encouraging outcome that justifies the ongoing multinational pivotal Carillon trial, according to the principal investigator of the analysis presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

In patients with functional mitral valve regurgitation (FMR), “the Carillon device shows extremely encouraging long-term mortality data from prospective controlled trials in comparison with guideline-directed medical therapy or with the COAPT results,” according to Janusz Lipiecki, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

The COAPT trial is an important benchmark, because it was the first large, randomized trial to show benefit for a percutaneous device in the treatment of heart failure patients with moderate to severe FMR (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2307-18). The study associated the MitraClip with a nearly 40% reduction in all-cause mortality (29.1% vs. 46.1%) at 24 months, relative to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The Carillon device, which is also delivered percutaneously, does not engage the valve leaflets to treat FMR. Rather, it is anchored in coronary sinus to reform the mitral annulus. This reduces FMR without damage to the mitral valve, thus preserving the potential for future valve repairs, according to Dr. Lipiecki, who reported that more than 1,100 devices have now been implanted, mostly in Europe.

The data so far are encouraging, said Dr. Lipiecki, who provided survival data in 74 patients followed for at least 5 years. Of these, 23 were drawn from the REDUCE FMR trial, which was blinded and sham controlled, and the remainder from the TITAN and TITAN II studies, which were prospective but not controlled.

In this series of 74 patients, there were no serious complications associated with the procedure, and all achieved a reduction in mitral regurgitation at 12 months, Dr. Lipiecki said. Furthermore, the reduction in FMR was associated with improvements in symptoms and “favorable remodeling” reflected in reduced left ventricular volume, he said.

In this series, the 5-year survival is 56%, which substantially exceeds what would be expected with GDMT, according to Dr. Lipiecki.

There were no baseline predictors of long-term survival, but improvements within the 6 months in functional heart class, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mitral regurgitation were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of being alive at 5 years.

Although there is no comparable follow-up with other devices, including the MitraClip, Dr. Lipiecki did compare the 67.9% survival at 3 years in this series to that of the COAPT trial. He restricted the comparison to those treated for grade 3+ or 4+ mitral regurgitation. At 36 months, survival rates were 57.2% and 44.5% for those treated with MitraClip and GDMT, respectively.

“COAPT patients might not be comparable for a variety of reasons, including the anatomic restrictions important to the use of either of these devices,” Dr. Lipiecki acknowledged, but he said the long-term data with the Carillon device provide support for the pivotal Carillon trial now enrolling.

In this blinded trial, more than 350 patients at 75 sites are being randomized to placement of the Carillon device, which has been available in Europe since 2011, or a sham procedure. The trial is scheduled for completion in 2025.

PHOENIX – Consumption of red meat, particularly the processed form, is linked to a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease in men, results from a large prospective analysis demonstrated.

“The findings of this study are in line with randomized trials showing that the consumption of red meat, as compared with plant-based protein sources, increases LDL cholesterol levels, and with previous studies on red meat and risk of coronary heart disease,” lead study author Laila Al-Shaar, MPH, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. Al-Shaar, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of nutrition at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, Boston, most of the existing studies on red meat and heart disease have examined the impact of increasing consumption of red meat while decreasing consumption of all other foods. For the current study, she and her colleagues used a substitution analysis approach to understand how replacing red meat (total, processed, or unprocessed) with another protein-rich food was associated with the risk of heart disease. “This would potentially provide more specific guidance for healthier alternatives for those planning to cut down their red meat intake,” she said.

She and her colleagues prospectively followed 43,259 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012) who had no known history of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Diet was assessed by a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire that was updated every 4 years. Dr. Al-Shaar and her colleagues used multivariate Cox models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CHD risk across categories of red meat consumption. They performed substitution analyses by comparing coefficients in models including alternative foods as continuous variables.

Over roughly 933,000 person-years of follow-up, the researchers documented 4,148 incident CHD cases. Of these, 1,680 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and nondietary risk factors, both total and processed red meat intake were associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for a one serving/day increment, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.14 for total red meat; and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22 for processed red meat). Substitutions of one serving per day of other foods (including nuts, legumes, soy, whole grains, and low- and high-fat dairy) for one serving per day of total red meat were associated with a 10%-47% lower CHD risk.

Stronger inverse associations were observed between some of these substitutions for red meat and risk of fatal CHD. Substituting nuts lowered the risk of fatal heart disease by 17%, while replacing red meat with whole grains was linked to a 48% reduction in that outcome. Those associations were more pronounced when replacing processed red meat.

“Processed meats and meats in general have been thought to be potentially not favorable in terms of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Now we have increasing data that not only is there a negative cardiovascular disease impact of animal protein, but we see this on all-cause mortality, including cancer.”

Dr. Al-Shaar said that the findings “support current recommendations to limit consumption of red meat and suggest that high-quality plant-based proteins such as nuts, legumes, and soy are good alternatives for individuals planning to have better food choices and healthier eating patterns.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that it was limited to non-Hispanic white health professionals, “thus limiting the generalizability of its findings to the whole population.”

Dr. Eckel, who is a past president of the American Heart Association, underscored the importance of one’s overall diet in mitigating the risk of developing coronary heart disease. “It’s not simply substituting animal protein with plant protein,” he said. “Fruits and vegetables and whole grains, lean protein from fish – a Mediterranean-style diet – is what the AHA recommends.”

Dr. Al-Shaar reported having no financial disclosures. The study was supported by a T32 training grant from the National Institutes of Health and by other grants from the NIH. The meeting was sponsored by the AHA.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Al-Shaar L et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract P512.

PHOENIX – Consumption of red meat, particularly the processed form, is linked to a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease in men, results from a large prospective analysis demonstrated.

“The findings of this study are in line with randomized trials showing that the consumption of red meat, as compared with plant-based protein sources, increases LDL cholesterol levels, and with previous studies on red meat and risk of coronary heart disease,” lead study author Laila Al-Shaar, MPH, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. Al-Shaar, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of nutrition at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, Boston, most of the existing studies on red meat and heart disease have examined the impact of increasing consumption of red meat while decreasing consumption of all other foods. For the current study, she and her colleagues used a substitution analysis approach to understand how replacing red meat (total, processed, or unprocessed) with another protein-rich food was associated with the risk of heart disease. “This would potentially provide more specific guidance for healthier alternatives for those planning to cut down their red meat intake,” she said.

She and her colleagues prospectively followed 43,259 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012) who had no known history of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Diet was assessed by a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire that was updated every 4 years. Dr. Al-Shaar and her colleagues used multivariate Cox models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CHD risk across categories of red meat consumption. They performed substitution analyses by comparing coefficients in models including alternative foods as continuous variables.

Over roughly 933,000 person-years of follow-up, the researchers documented 4,148 incident CHD cases. Of these, 1,680 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and nondietary risk factors, both total and processed red meat intake were associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for a one serving/day increment, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.14 for total red meat; and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22 for processed red meat). Substitutions of one serving per day of other foods (including nuts, legumes, soy, whole grains, and low- and high-fat dairy) for one serving per day of total red meat were associated with a 10%-47% lower CHD risk.

Stronger inverse associations were observed between some of these substitutions for red meat and risk of fatal CHD. Substituting nuts lowered the risk of fatal heart disease by 17%, while replacing red meat with whole grains was linked to a 48% reduction in that outcome. Those associations were more pronounced when replacing processed red meat.

“Processed meats and meats in general have been thought to be potentially not favorable in terms of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Now we have increasing data that not only is there a negative cardiovascular disease impact of animal protein, but we see this on all-cause mortality, including cancer.”

Dr. Al-Shaar said that the findings “support current recommendations to limit consumption of red meat and suggest that high-quality plant-based proteins such as nuts, legumes, and soy are good alternatives for individuals planning to have better food choices and healthier eating patterns.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that it was limited to non-Hispanic white health professionals, “thus limiting the generalizability of its findings to the whole population.”

Dr. Eckel, who is a past president of the American Heart Association, underscored the importance of one’s overall diet in mitigating the risk of developing coronary heart disease. “It’s not simply substituting animal protein with plant protein,” he said. “Fruits and vegetables and whole grains, lean protein from fish – a Mediterranean-style diet – is what the AHA recommends.”

Dr. Al-Shaar reported having no financial disclosures. The study was supported by a T32 training grant from the National Institutes of Health and by other grants from the NIH. The meeting was sponsored by the AHA.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Al-Shaar L et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract P512.

PHOENIX – Consumption of red meat, particularly the processed form, is linked to a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease in men, results from a large prospective analysis demonstrated.

“The findings of this study are in line with randomized trials showing that the consumption of red meat, as compared with plant-based protein sources, increases LDL cholesterol levels, and with previous studies on red meat and risk of coronary heart disease,” lead study author Laila Al-Shaar, MPH, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

According to Dr. Al-Shaar, a postdoctoral research fellow in the department of nutrition at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, Boston, most of the existing studies on red meat and heart disease have examined the impact of increasing consumption of red meat while decreasing consumption of all other foods. For the current study, she and her colleagues used a substitution analysis approach to understand how replacing red meat (total, processed, or unprocessed) with another protein-rich food was associated with the risk of heart disease. “This would potentially provide more specific guidance for healthier alternatives for those planning to cut down their red meat intake,” she said.

She and her colleagues prospectively followed 43,259 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012) who had no known history of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Diet was assessed by a standardized and validated food frequency questionnaire that was updated every 4 years. Dr. Al-Shaar and her colleagues used multivariate Cox models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of CHD risk across categories of red meat consumption. They performed substitution analyses by comparing coefficients in models including alternative foods as continuous variables.

Over roughly 933,000 person-years of follow-up, the researchers documented 4,148 incident CHD cases. Of these, 1,680 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and nondietary risk factors, both total and processed red meat intake were associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for a one serving/day increment, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.14 for total red meat; and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22 for processed red meat). Substitutions of one serving per day of other foods (including nuts, legumes, soy, whole grains, and low- and high-fat dairy) for one serving per day of total red meat were associated with a 10%-47% lower CHD risk.

Stronger inverse associations were observed between some of these substitutions for red meat and risk of fatal CHD. Substituting nuts lowered the risk of fatal heart disease by 17%, while replacing red meat with whole grains was linked to a 48% reduction in that outcome. Those associations were more pronounced when replacing processed red meat.

“Processed meats and meats in general have been thought to be potentially not favorable in terms of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, said in an interview. “Now we have increasing data that not only is there a negative cardiovascular disease impact of animal protein, but we see this on all-cause mortality, including cancer.”

Dr. Al-Shaar said that the findings “support current recommendations to limit consumption of red meat and suggest that high-quality plant-based proteins such as nuts, legumes, and soy are good alternatives for individuals planning to have better food choices and healthier eating patterns.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design and the fact that it was limited to non-Hispanic white health professionals, “thus limiting the generalizability of its findings to the whole population.”

Dr. Eckel, who is a past president of the American Heart Association, underscored the importance of one’s overall diet in mitigating the risk of developing coronary heart disease. “It’s not simply substituting animal protein with plant protein,” he said. “Fruits and vegetables and whole grains, lean protein from fish – a Mediterranean-style diet – is what the AHA recommends.”

Dr. Al-Shaar reported having no financial disclosures. The study was supported by a T32 training grant from the National Institutes of Health and by other grants from the NIH. The meeting was sponsored by the AHA.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Al-Shaar L et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract P512.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

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

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

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

In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.

tomprout/E+

Medical identity theft is increasingly popular with scam artists, because it is so lucrative. Everything a crook needs to commit ordinary identity theft – your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.

If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)

Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.

Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.

Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.

We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.

Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
 

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

PHOENIX – Statin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease increased modestly between 2008 and 2017 in the United States, but more than 40% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are still not on a statin.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, even after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults (Circulation. 2014;129:S1-45) that markedly increased the pool of eligible patients, disparities exist in the proportion of women versus men, and blacks and Hispanics versus whites with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who are currently receiving a statin.

“Despite repeated calls for the use of statins for secondary prevention of CVD in multiple guidelines, gender and racial inequalities in the use of statins persist,” Joseph A. Salami, MD, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2017, it was responsible for 647,457 deaths. We have an opportunity to improve CVD-related outcomes and cost by intensifying efforts to use statins for the secondary prevention of CVD and closing gender and racial gaps. Action is needed.”

Dr. Salami, a biostatistician with the Baptist Health South Florida Center for Advanced Analytics in Coral Gables, based his remarks on an analysis of data contained in the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national representative survey sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Between 2013 and 2018 there were six different guidelines released encouraging statin use among ASCVD patients,” he said. “Besides the good number needed to treat, statin use on secondary prevention of CVD is cost effective.”

Given the proven efficacy of statin use in the prevention of CVD, he and his associates set out to examine trends in the proportion of adults with ASCVD using statins and to assess for gender and racial differences in their use. The researchers used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to define ASCVD among the MEPS study population, as well as self-reported history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and stroke. After excluding adults aged younger than 40 years and those without ASCVD, this left a population of 15,911 patients. Of these, 44% were female, their mean age was 62 years, and 72% were Caucasian.

Overall, statin use increased from 50% in 2008 to 58.7% in 2017, with an average annual percentage change of 0.95% between 2010 and 2017 (P = .01). However, the annual percentage change in statin use was 0.25% among men versus 0.14% among women (P = .022). “Each year during the study period, more than 3 million women with ASCVD were not prescribed a statin, which translated into about 36 million adult-years,” Dr. Salami said. “In 2017, 16% of these women were African Americans and 15% were Hispanic.”

Logistic regression analysis revealed that in 2017, females with ASCVD were less likely to be prescribed a statin, compared with males (odds ratio, 0.52; P less than .001). In addition, compared with whites, blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin (OR, 0.69; P = .012), as were Hispanics (OR, 0.62; P = .003). “In a multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, health insurance status, and comorbidities, the gender disparity remained statistically significant, but the racial disparity did not,” Dr. Salami said.

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, PhD, characterized the study’s findings as sobering. “This should be an eye-opener for all of us in medicine, whether we are physicians, pharmacists, nurses, or researchers,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician scientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’re all in this together, and we all have a role to play in addressing social determinants of health. I think we need to recognize the fact that we’re not treating blacks, Hispanics, and women to the degree that we should be, compared to whites and men. I think we need to do better, and we need to figure out how to reach that population, and how to improve.”

Dr. Salami acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that MEPS was carried out in a noninstitutionalized adult population and that the definition of ASCVD was based partly on self-report. “Therefore, an underestimation of number adults with ASCVD is likely,” he said. “We also couldn’t determine adherence to medication nor long-term use of statins among adults with ASCVD.”

He concluded his presentation by noting that, over the 10-year study period, there were about 71.2 million ASCVD adult-years without a statin prescription. “That is a staggering number,” Dr. Salami said.

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salami A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 4.

PHOENIX – Statin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease increased modestly between 2008 and 2017 in the United States, but more than 40% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are still not on a statin.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, even after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults (Circulation. 2014;129:S1-45) that markedly increased the pool of eligible patients, disparities exist in the proportion of women versus men, and blacks and Hispanics versus whites with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who are currently receiving a statin.

“Despite repeated calls for the use of statins for secondary prevention of CVD in multiple guidelines, gender and racial inequalities in the use of statins persist,” Joseph A. Salami, MD, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2017, it was responsible for 647,457 deaths. We have an opportunity to improve CVD-related outcomes and cost by intensifying efforts to use statins for the secondary prevention of CVD and closing gender and racial gaps. Action is needed.”

Dr. Salami, a biostatistician with the Baptist Health South Florida Center for Advanced Analytics in Coral Gables, based his remarks on an analysis of data contained in the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national representative survey sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Between 2013 and 2018 there were six different guidelines released encouraging statin use among ASCVD patients,” he said. “Besides the good number needed to treat, statin use on secondary prevention of CVD is cost effective.”

Given the proven efficacy of statin use in the prevention of CVD, he and his associates set out to examine trends in the proportion of adults with ASCVD using statins and to assess for gender and racial differences in their use. The researchers used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to define ASCVD among the MEPS study population, as well as self-reported history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and stroke. After excluding adults aged younger than 40 years and those without ASCVD, this left a population of 15,911 patients. Of these, 44% were female, their mean age was 62 years, and 72% were Caucasian.

Overall, statin use increased from 50% in 2008 to 58.7% in 2017, with an average annual percentage change of 0.95% between 2010 and 2017 (P = .01). However, the annual percentage change in statin use was 0.25% among men versus 0.14% among women (P = .022). “Each year during the study period, more than 3 million women with ASCVD were not prescribed a statin, which translated into about 36 million adult-years,” Dr. Salami said. “In 2017, 16% of these women were African Americans and 15% were Hispanic.”

Logistic regression analysis revealed that in 2017, females with ASCVD were less likely to be prescribed a statin, compared with males (odds ratio, 0.52; P less than .001). In addition, compared with whites, blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin (OR, 0.69; P = .012), as were Hispanics (OR, 0.62; P = .003). “In a multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, health insurance status, and comorbidities, the gender disparity remained statistically significant, but the racial disparity did not,” Dr. Salami said.

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, PhD, characterized the study’s findings as sobering. “This should be an eye-opener for all of us in medicine, whether we are physicians, pharmacists, nurses, or researchers,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician scientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’re all in this together, and we all have a role to play in addressing social determinants of health. I think we need to recognize the fact that we’re not treating blacks, Hispanics, and women to the degree that we should be, compared to whites and men. I think we need to do better, and we need to figure out how to reach that population, and how to improve.”

Dr. Salami acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that MEPS was carried out in a noninstitutionalized adult population and that the definition of ASCVD was based partly on self-report. “Therefore, an underestimation of number adults with ASCVD is likely,” he said. “We also couldn’t determine adherence to medication nor long-term use of statins among adults with ASCVD.”

He concluded his presentation by noting that, over the 10-year study period, there were about 71.2 million ASCVD adult-years without a statin prescription. “That is a staggering number,” Dr. Salami said.

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salami A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 4.

PHOENIX – Statin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease increased modestly between 2008 and 2017 in the United States, but more than 40% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are still not on a statin.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, even after release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults (Circulation. 2014;129:S1-45) that markedly increased the pool of eligible patients, disparities exist in the proportion of women versus men, and blacks and Hispanics versus whites with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who are currently receiving a statin.

“Despite repeated calls for the use of statins for secondary prevention of CVD in multiple guidelines, gender and racial inequalities in the use of statins persist,” Joseph A. Salami, MD, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2017, it was responsible for 647,457 deaths. We have an opportunity to improve CVD-related outcomes and cost by intensifying efforts to use statins for the secondary prevention of CVD and closing gender and racial gaps. Action is needed.”

Dr. Salami, a biostatistician with the Baptist Health South Florida Center for Advanced Analytics in Coral Gables, based his remarks on an analysis of data contained in the 2008-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national representative survey sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Between 2013 and 2018 there were six different guidelines released encouraging statin use among ASCVD patients,” he said. “Besides the good number needed to treat, statin use on secondary prevention of CVD is cost effective.”

Given the proven efficacy of statin use in the prevention of CVD, he and his associates set out to examine trends in the proportion of adults with ASCVD using statins and to assess for gender and racial differences in their use. The researchers used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to define ASCVD among the MEPS study population, as well as self-reported history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and stroke. After excluding adults aged younger than 40 years and those without ASCVD, this left a population of 15,911 patients. Of these, 44% were female, their mean age was 62 years, and 72% were Caucasian.

Overall, statin use increased from 50% in 2008 to 58.7% in 2017, with an average annual percentage change of 0.95% between 2010 and 2017 (P = .01). However, the annual percentage change in statin use was 0.25% among men versus 0.14% among women (P = .022). “Each year during the study period, more than 3 million women with ASCVD were not prescribed a statin, which translated into about 36 million adult-years,” Dr. Salami said. “In 2017, 16% of these women were African Americans and 15% were Hispanic.”

Logistic regression analysis revealed that in 2017, females with ASCVD were less likely to be prescribed a statin, compared with males (odds ratio, 0.52; P less than .001). In addition, compared with whites, blacks were less likely to be prescribed a statin (OR, 0.69; P = .012), as were Hispanics (OR, 0.62; P = .003). “In a multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, health insurance status, and comorbidities, the gender disparity remained statistically significant, but the racial disparity did not,” Dr. Salami said.

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, PhD, characterized the study’s findings as sobering. “This should be an eye-opener for all of us in medicine, whether we are physicians, pharmacists, nurses, or researchers,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician scientist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “We’re all in this together, and we all have a role to play in addressing social determinants of health. I think we need to recognize the fact that we’re not treating blacks, Hispanics, and women to the degree that we should be, compared to whites and men. I think we need to do better, and we need to figure out how to reach that population, and how to improve.”

Dr. Salami acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that MEPS was carried out in a noninstitutionalized adult population and that the definition of ASCVD was based partly on self-report. “Therefore, an underestimation of number adults with ASCVD is likely,” he said. “We also couldn’t determine adherence to medication nor long-term use of statins among adults with ASCVD.”

He concluded his presentation by noting that, over the 10-year study period, there were about 71.2 million ASCVD adult-years without a statin prescription. “That is a staggering number,” Dr. Salami said.

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salami A et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 4.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Anticoagulation reduces the risk of leaflet thrombosis at 30 days relative to antiplatelet therapy in low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), according to a randomized feasibility study presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute..

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 30 days, oral anticoagulation with warfarin did not appear to be associated with any increased risk of adverse outcomes, including bleeding events, relative to aspirin, according to Toby Rogers, MD, PhD, the scientific lead for the Structural Heart Disease Program at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, Washington.

The rationale for this feasibility study, called LRT 2.0, was to evaluate whether anticoagulation after low-risk TAVR reduces the risk of early subclinical leaflet thrombosis, a potential threat to long-term valve survival.

“In the first LRT trial, HALT [hypoattenuated leaflet thickening] was observed in 13.5% of patients on antiplatelet therapy but only 4.8% of those on oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Rogers said.

The two strategies have not been adequately compared, particularly in low-risk patients, according to Dr. Rogers. He noted that current guidelines recommend dual-antiplatelet therapy after TAVR but the oral anticoagulant warfarin after surgical valve replacement, a situation he characterized as a “discrepancy.”

In the multicenter, randomized LRT 2.0 trial, 94 patients undergoing TAVR and meeting prespecified low-risk criteria, such as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3 or lower, were randomized to warfarin or to aspirin. The study called for an enrollment of 200 patients but was closed early when the Food and Drug Administration approved TAVR for low-risk patients in 2019, causing “enrollment to dry up over night.”

However, an additional registry cohort was included in a separate analysis. This registry cohort consisted of 30 patients who were evaluated for trial inclusion but were found to be inappropriate for randomization because they already had an indication for anticoagulation or had an elevated risk of bleeding. These low-risk TAVR patients were assigned to anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy as appropriate.

When the randomized groups were compared, the incidence of HALT at 30 days on CT scan was 4.7% among those on warfarin and 16.3% (P = .07) among those taking aspirin. Dr. Rogers believes the near miss for statistical significance was a problem of power, a position supported by the pooled analysis of randomized and registry patients. With the added patients, the difference in HALT did reach significance (3.1% vs. 16.4%; P = .01).

The numerical differences in reduced leaflet motion and hypoattenuated motion favoring anticoagulation trended for significance in the randomized cohort (P = .12) but reached the cusp of significance in the pooled cohort (1.5% vs. 9.4%; P = .052) for both reduced leaflet motion and hypoattenuated motion).

There were no deaths recorded in any treatment arm, whether restricted to the randomized trial or within the pooled cohort. For the pooled cohort, there were more strokes in the aspirin arm (5.4% vs. 1.5%) but Dr. Rogers said that no conclusions could be drawn about relative risk because of the study size and small number of events.

For anticoagulation relative to antiplatelet therapy, respectively, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (1.5% vs. 1.8%), pacemaker implantation (11.8% vs. 7.1%), major bleeding (1.5% vs. 5.4%), and median length of stay (2.2 vs. 2.4 days) were all similar. The improvements in hemodynamics 30 days after TAVR were substantial and similar in the two groups, according to Dr. Rogers.

Emphasizing that this is a feasibility study, Dr. Rogers cautioned that these data do not necessarily demonstrate that anticoagulation is a better strategy than antiplatelet therapy in low-risk patients after TAVR, but they do associate anticoagulation with a reduced risk of early leaflet thrombosis.

“We fear leaflet thrombosis for the potential that it will negatively impact valve durability, which is particularly important in younger lower-risk patients who might outlive their first valve prosthesis,” Dr. Rogers said.

Panelists at the late-breaking clinical trial session expressed interest in this concept but generally agreed that longer follow-up is needed. This additional follow-up is important for monitoring effect on leaflet thrombosis as well as on the overall impact of these strategies on adverse events.

“We need to see CT scans at later time points because we do not know where this complication comes from. The trigger for leaflet thrombosis might still be there after 30 days,” said Andreas Baumbach, MD, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Bristol (England). However, he agreed that this is an important line of research, because the potential risk of leaflet thrombosis is “a very important question for us.”

Dr. Rogers reported financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Anticoagulation reduces the risk of leaflet thrombosis at 30 days relative to antiplatelet therapy in low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), according to a randomized feasibility study presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute..

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 30 days, oral anticoagulation with warfarin did not appear to be associated with any increased risk of adverse outcomes, including bleeding events, relative to aspirin, according to Toby Rogers, MD, PhD, the scientific lead for the Structural Heart Disease Program at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, Washington.

The rationale for this feasibility study, called LRT 2.0, was to evaluate whether anticoagulation after low-risk TAVR reduces the risk of early subclinical leaflet thrombosis, a potential threat to long-term valve survival.

“In the first LRT trial, HALT [hypoattenuated leaflet thickening] was observed in 13.5% of patients on antiplatelet therapy but only 4.8% of those on oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Rogers said.

The two strategies have not been adequately compared, particularly in low-risk patients, according to Dr. Rogers. He noted that current guidelines recommend dual-antiplatelet therapy after TAVR but the oral anticoagulant warfarin after surgical valve replacement, a situation he characterized as a “discrepancy.”

In the multicenter, randomized LRT 2.0 trial, 94 patients undergoing TAVR and meeting prespecified low-risk criteria, such as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3 or lower, were randomized to warfarin or to aspirin. The study called for an enrollment of 200 patients but was closed early when the Food and Drug Administration approved TAVR for low-risk patients in 2019, causing “enrollment to dry up over night.”

However, an additional registry cohort was included in a separate analysis. This registry cohort consisted of 30 patients who were evaluated for trial inclusion but were found to be inappropriate for randomization because they already had an indication for anticoagulation or had an elevated risk of bleeding. These low-risk TAVR patients were assigned to anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy as appropriate.

When the randomized groups were compared, the incidence of HALT at 30 days on CT scan was 4.7% among those on warfarin and 16.3% (P = .07) among those taking aspirin. Dr. Rogers believes the near miss for statistical significance was a problem of power, a position supported by the pooled analysis of randomized and registry patients. With the added patients, the difference in HALT did reach significance (3.1% vs. 16.4%; P = .01).

The numerical differences in reduced leaflet motion and hypoattenuated motion favoring anticoagulation trended for significance in the randomized cohort (P = .12) but reached the cusp of significance in the pooled cohort (1.5% vs. 9.4%; P = .052) for both reduced leaflet motion and hypoattenuated motion).

There were no deaths recorded in any treatment arm, whether restricted to the randomized trial or within the pooled cohort. For the pooled cohort, there were more strokes in the aspirin arm (5.4% vs. 1.5%) but Dr. Rogers said that no conclusions could be drawn about relative risk because of the study size and small number of events.

For anticoagulation relative to antiplatelet therapy, respectively, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (1.5% vs. 1.8%), pacemaker implantation (11.8% vs. 7.1%), major bleeding (1.5% vs. 5.4%), and median length of stay (2.2 vs. 2.4 days) were all similar. The improvements in hemodynamics 30 days after TAVR were substantial and similar in the two groups, according to Dr. Rogers.

Emphasizing that this is a feasibility study, Dr. Rogers cautioned that these data do not necessarily demonstrate that anticoagulation is a better strategy than antiplatelet therapy in low-risk patients after TAVR, but they do associate anticoagulation with a reduced risk of early leaflet thrombosis.

“We fear leaflet thrombosis for the potential that it will negatively impact valve durability, which is particularly important in younger lower-risk patients who might outlive their first valve prosthesis,” Dr. Rogers said.

Panelists at the late-breaking clinical trial session expressed interest in this concept but generally agreed that longer follow-up is needed. This additional follow-up is important for monitoring effect on leaflet thrombosis as well as on the overall impact of these strategies on adverse events.

“We need to see CT scans at later time points because we do not know where this complication comes from. The trigger for leaflet thrombosis might still be there after 30 days,” said Andreas Baumbach, MD, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Bristol (England). However, he agreed that this is an important line of research, because the potential risk of leaflet thrombosis is “a very important question for us.”

Dr. Rogers reported financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Anticoagulation reduces the risk of leaflet thrombosis at 30 days relative to antiplatelet therapy in low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), according to a randomized feasibility study presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute..

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

At 30 days, oral anticoagulation with warfarin did not appear to be associated with any increased risk of adverse outcomes, including bleeding events, relative to aspirin, according to Toby Rogers, MD, PhD, the scientific lead for the Structural Heart Disease Program at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, Washington.

The rationale for this feasibility study, called LRT 2.0, was to evaluate whether anticoagulation after low-risk TAVR reduces the risk of early subclinical leaflet thrombosis, a potential threat to long-term valve survival.

“In the first LRT trial, HALT [hypoattenuated leaflet thickening] was observed in 13.5% of patients on antiplatelet therapy but only 4.8% of those on oral anticoagulation,” Dr. Rogers said.

The two strategies have not been adequately compared, particularly in low-risk patients, according to Dr. Rogers. He noted that current guidelines recommend dual-antiplatelet therapy after TAVR but the oral anticoagulant warfarin after surgical valve replacement, a situation he characterized as a “discrepancy.”

In the multicenter, randomized LRT 2.0 trial, 94 patients undergoing TAVR and meeting prespecified low-risk criteria, such as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3 or lower, were randomized to warfarin or to aspirin. The study called for an enrollment of 200 patients but was closed early when the Food and Drug Administration approved TAVR for low-risk patients in 2019, causing “enrollment to dry up over night.”

However, an additional registry cohort was included in a separate analysis. This registry cohort consisted of 30 patients who were evaluated for trial inclusion but were found to be inappropriate for randomization because they already had an indication for anticoagulation or had an elevated risk of bleeding. These low-risk TAVR patients were assigned to anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy as appropriate.

When the randomized groups were compared, the incidence of HALT at 30 days on CT scan was 4.7% among those on warfarin and 16.3% (P = .07) among those taking aspirin. Dr. Rogers believes the near miss for statistical significance was a problem of power, a position supported by the pooled analysis of randomized and registry patients. With the added patients, the difference in HALT did reach significance (3.1% vs. 16.4%; P = .01).

The numerical differences in reduced leaflet motion and hypoattenuated motion favoring anticoagulation trended for significance in the randomized cohort (P = .12) but reached the cusp of significance in the pooled cohort (1.5% vs. 9.4%; P = .052) for both reduced leaflet motion and hypoattenuated motion).

There were no deaths recorded in any treatment arm, whether restricted to the randomized trial or within the pooled cohort. For the pooled cohort, there were more strokes in the aspirin arm (5.4% vs. 1.5%) but Dr. Rogers said that no conclusions could be drawn about relative risk because of the study size and small number of events.

For anticoagulation relative to antiplatelet therapy, respectively, the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (1.5% vs. 1.8%), pacemaker implantation (11.8% vs. 7.1%), major bleeding (1.5% vs. 5.4%), and median length of stay (2.2 vs. 2.4 days) were all similar. The improvements in hemodynamics 30 days after TAVR were substantial and similar in the two groups, according to Dr. Rogers.

Emphasizing that this is a feasibility study, Dr. Rogers cautioned that these data do not necessarily demonstrate that anticoagulation is a better strategy than antiplatelet therapy in low-risk patients after TAVR, but they do associate anticoagulation with a reduced risk of early leaflet thrombosis.

“We fear leaflet thrombosis for the potential that it will negatively impact valve durability, which is particularly important in younger lower-risk patients who might outlive their first valve prosthesis,” Dr. Rogers said.

Panelists at the late-breaking clinical trial session expressed interest in this concept but generally agreed that longer follow-up is needed. This additional follow-up is important for monitoring effect on leaflet thrombosis as well as on the overall impact of these strategies on adverse events.

“We need to see CT scans at later time points because we do not know where this complication comes from. The trigger for leaflet thrombosis might still be there after 30 days,” said Andreas Baumbach, MD, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Bristol (England). However, he agreed that this is an important line of research, because the potential risk of leaflet thrombosis is “a very important question for us.”

Dr. Rogers reported financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.