MDedge Emergency Medicine

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.

“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.

Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.

Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again. 

Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.

“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.

Where Delta goes, death follows

Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.

Research from the United Kingdom shows that Delta is highly contagious. It’s about 60% more easily passed from person to person than the Alpha version (or B.1.1.7, which was first identified in the United Kingdom). 

Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.

“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.

Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated. 

“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.

Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.

Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.

“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.

Enhanced virus

The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.

It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.

This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.

Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.

“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.

Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.

And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case. 

China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected. 

Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.

This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days. 

When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.

This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.

And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.

This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.

Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.

Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.

“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.

Escape artist

Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.

This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization. 

After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.

Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.

“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.

“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”

The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.

A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.

Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus. 

As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.

German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.

They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.

Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.

“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”

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

Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.

“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.

Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.

Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again. 

Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.

“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.

Where Delta goes, death follows

Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.

Research from the United Kingdom shows that Delta is highly contagious. It’s about 60% more easily passed from person to person than the Alpha version (or B.1.1.7, which was first identified in the United Kingdom). 

Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.

“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.

Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated. 

“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.

Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.

Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.

“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.

Enhanced virus

The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.

It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.

This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.

Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.

“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.

Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.

And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case. 

China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected. 

Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.

This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days. 

When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.

This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.

And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.

This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.

Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.

Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.

“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.

Escape artist

Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.

This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization. 

After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.

Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.

“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.

“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”

The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.

A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.

Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus. 

As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.

German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.

They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.

Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.

“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”

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

Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.

“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.

Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.

Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again. 

Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.

“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.

Where Delta goes, death follows

Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.

Research from the United Kingdom shows that Delta is highly contagious. It’s about 60% more easily passed from person to person than the Alpha version (or B.1.1.7, which was first identified in the United Kingdom). 

Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.

“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.

Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated. 

“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.

Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.

Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.

“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.

Enhanced virus

The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.

It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.

This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.

Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.

“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.

Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.

And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case. 

China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected. 

Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.

This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days. 

When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.

This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.

And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.

This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.

Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.

Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.

“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.

Escape artist

Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.

This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization. 

After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.

Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.

“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.

“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”

The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.

A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.

Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus. 

As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.

German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.

They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.

Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.

“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”

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

Sixteen years in the making, the American Academy of Pediatrics just released a new clinical practice guideline (CPG), “Evaluation and Management of Well-Appearing Febrile Infants 8-60 Days Old”. The recommendations were derived from interpretations of sequential studies in young, febrile, but well-appearing infants that covered invasive bacterial infection (IBI) incidence, diagnostic modalities, and treatment during the first 2 months of life, further refining approaches to evaluation and empirical treatment.
 

Pediatricians have long had solid information to help assess the risk for IBI among febrile infants aged 0-3 months, but there has been an ongoing desire to further refine the suggested evaluation of these very young infants. A study of febrile infants from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network along with subsequent evidence has identified the first 3 weeks of life as the period of highest risk for IBI, with risk declining in a graded fashion aged between 22 and 56 days.
 

Critical caveats

First, some caveats. Infants 0-7 days are not addressed in the CPG, and all should be treated as high risk and receive full IBI evaluation according to newborn protocols. Second, the recommendations apply only to “well-appearing” infants. Any ill-appearing infant should be treated as high risk and receive full IBI evaluation and begun on empirical antimicrobials. Third, even though the CPG deals with infants as young as 8-21 days old, the recommendations are to treat all infants in this age group as high risk, even if well-appearing, and complete full IBI evaluation and empirical therapy while awaiting results. Fourth, these guidelines apply only to infants born at 37 weeks’ gestation or more. Finally, the new CPG action statements are meant to be recommendations rather than a standard of medical care, leaving some leeway for clinician interpretation of individual patient scenarios. Where appropriate, parents’ values and preferences should be incorporated as part of shared decision-making.

The CPG divides young, febrile infants into three cohorts based on age:

• 8-21 days old
• 22-28 days old
• 29-60 days old

Age 8-21 days

For well-appearing febrile infants 8-21 days old, the CPG recommends a complete IBI evaluation that includes urine, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for culture, approaching all infants in this cohort as high risk. Inflammatory markers may be obtained, but the evidence is not comprehensive enough to evaluate their role in decision-making for this age group. A two-step urine evaluation method (urine analysis followed by culture if the urine analysis looks concerning) is not recommended for infants aged 8-21 days. Urine samples for culture from these young infants should be obtained by catheterization or suprapubic aspiration.

The CPG recommends drawing blood cultures and CSF by lumbar puncture from this cohort. These infants should be admitted to the hospital, treated empirically with antimicrobials, and actively monitored. However, if the cultures are negative at 24-36 hours, the clinician should discontinue antimicrobials and discharge the infant if there is no other reason for continued hospitalization.
 

Age 22-28 days

Well-appearing, febrile infants 22-28 days old are in an intermediate-risk zone. The recommendation for infants in this cohort is to obtain a urine specimen by catheterization or suprapubic aspiration for both urine analysis and culture. Clinicians may consider obtaining urine samples for analysis noninvasively (e.g., urine bag) in this cohort, but this is not the preferred method.

Blood culture should be obtained from all infants in this group. Inflammatory markers can help clinicians identify infants at greater risk for IBI, including meningitis. Previous data suggested that inflammatory markers such as serum white blood cell counts greater than 11,000/mcL, a serum absolute neutrophil count of greater than 4,000/mcL, and elevated C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels could help providers identify febrile infants with true IBI. A 2008 study demonstrated that procalcitonin had the best receiver operating characteristic curve in regard to predicting IBI in young febrile infants. Other research backed up that finding and identified cutoff values for procalcitonin levels greater than 1.0 ng/mL. The CPG recommends considering a procalcitonin value of 0.5 ng/mL or higher as positive, indicating that the infant is at greater risk for IBI and potentially should undergo an expanded IBI workup. Therefore, in infants aged 22-28 days, inflammatory markers can play a role in deciding whether to perform a lumbar puncture.

Many more nuanced recommendations for whether to and how to empirically treat with antimicrobials in this cohort can be found in the CPG, including whether to manage in the hospital or at home. Treatment recommendations vary greatly for this cohort on the basis of the tests obtained and whether tests were positive or negative at the initial evaluation.
 

Age 29-60 days

The CPG will be most helpful when clinicians are faced with well-appearing, febrile infants in the 29- to 60-day age group. As with the other groups, a urine evaluation is recommended; however, the CPG suggests that the two-step approach – obtaining a urine analysis by a noninvasive method and only obtaining culture if the urine analysis is positive – is reasonable. This means that a bag or free-flowing urine specimen would be appropriate for urinalysis, followed by catheterization/suprapubic aspiration if a culture is necessary. This would save approximately 90% of infants from invasive urine collection. Regardless, only catheter or suprapubic specimens are appropriate for urine culture.

The CPG also recommends that clinicians obtain blood culture on all of these infants. Inflammatory markers should be assessed in this cohort because avoiding lumbar puncture for CSF culture would be appropriate in this cohort if the inflammatory markers are negative. If CSF is obtained in this age cohort, enterovirus testing should be added to the testing regimen. Again, for any infant considered at higher risk for IBI on the basis of screening tests, the CPG recommends a 24- to 36-hour rule-out period with empirical antimicrobial treatment and active monitoring in the hospital.
 

Summary

The recommended approach for febrile infants 8-21 days old is relatively aggressive, with urine, blood, and CSF evaluation for IBI. Clinicians gain some leeway for infants age 22-28 days, but the guidelines recommend a more flexible approach to evaluating well-appearing, febrile infants age 29-60 days, when a two-step urine evaluation and inflammatory marker assessment can help clinicians and parents have a better discussion about the risk-benefit trade-offs of more aggressive testing and empirical treatment.

The author would like to thank Ken Roberts, MD, for his review and helpful comments on this summary of the CPG highlights. Summary points of the CPG were presented by the writing group at the 2021 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

William T. Basco, Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Sixteen years in the making, the American Academy of Pediatrics just released a new clinical practice guideline (CPG), “Evaluation and Management of Well-Appearing Febrile Infants 8-60 Days Old”. The recommendations were derived from interpretations of sequential studies in young, febrile, but well-appearing infants that covered invasive bacterial infection (IBI) incidence, diagnostic modalities, and treatment during the first 2 months of life, further refining approaches to evaluation and empirical treatment.
 

Pediatricians have long had solid information to help assess the risk for IBI among febrile infants aged 0-3 months, but there has been an ongoing desire to further refine the suggested evaluation of these very young infants. A study of febrile infants from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network along with subsequent evidence has identified the first 3 weeks of life as the period of highest risk for IBI, with risk declining in a graded fashion aged between 22 and 56 days.
 

Critical caveats

First, some caveats. Infants 0-7 days are not addressed in the CPG, and all should be treated as high risk and receive full IBI evaluation according to newborn protocols. Second, the recommendations apply only to “well-appearing” infants. Any ill-appearing infant should be treated as high risk and receive full IBI evaluation and begun on empirical antimicrobials. Third, even though the CPG deals with infants as young as 8-21 days old, the recommendations are to treat all infants in this age group as high risk, even if well-appearing, and complete full IBI evaluation and empirical therapy while awaiting results. Fourth, these guidelines apply only to infants born at 37 weeks’ gestation or more. Finally, the new CPG action statements are meant to be recommendations rather than a standard of medical care, leaving some leeway for clinician interpretation of individual patient scenarios. Where appropriate, parents’ values and preferences should be incorporated as part of shared decision-making.

The CPG divides young, febrile infants into three cohorts based on age:

• 8-21 days old
• 22-28 days old
• 29-60 days old

Age 8-21 days

For well-appearing febrile infants 8-21 days old, the CPG recommends a complete IBI evaluation that includes urine, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for culture, approaching all infants in this cohort as high risk. Inflammatory markers may be obtained, but the evidence is not comprehensive enough to evaluate their role in decision-making for this age group. A two-step urine evaluation method (urine analysis followed by culture if the urine analysis looks concerning) is not recommended for infants aged 8-21 days. Urine samples for culture from these young infants should be obtained by catheterization or suprapubic aspiration.

The CPG recommends drawing blood cultures and CSF by lumbar puncture from this cohort. These infants should be admitted to the hospital, treated empirically with antimicrobials, and actively monitored. However, if the cultures are negative at 24-36 hours, the clinician should discontinue antimicrobials and discharge the infant if there is no other reason for continued hospitalization.
 

Age 22-28 days

Well-appearing, febrile infants 22-28 days old are in an intermediate-risk zone. The recommendation for infants in this cohort is to obtain a urine specimen by catheterization or suprapubic aspiration for both urine analysis and culture. Clinicians may consider obtaining urine samples for analysis noninvasively (e.g., urine bag) in this cohort, but this is not the preferred method.

Blood culture should be obtained from all infants in this group. Inflammatory markers can help clinicians identify infants at greater risk for IBI, including meningitis. Previous data suggested that inflammatory markers such as serum white blood cell counts greater than 11,000/mcL, a serum absolute neutrophil count of greater than 4,000/mcL, and elevated C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels could help providers identify febrile infants with true IBI. A 2008 study demonstrated that procalcitonin had the best receiver operating characteristic curve in regard to predicting IBI in young febrile infants. Other research backed up that finding and identified cutoff values for procalcitonin levels greater than 1.0 ng/mL. The CPG recommends considering a procalcitonin value of 0.5 ng/mL or higher as positive, indicating that the infant is at greater risk for IBI and potentially should undergo an expanded IBI workup. Therefore, in infants aged 22-28 days, inflammatory markers can play a role in deciding whether to perform a lumbar puncture.

Many more nuanced recommendations for whether to and how to empirically treat with antimicrobials in this cohort can be found in the CPG, including whether to manage in the hospital or at home. Treatment recommendations vary greatly for this cohort on the basis of the tests obtained and whether tests were positive or negative at the initial evaluation.
 

Age 29-60 days

The CPG will be most helpful when clinicians are faced with well-appearing, febrile infants in the 29- to 60-day age group. As with the other groups, a urine evaluation is recommended; however, the CPG suggests that the two-step approach – obtaining a urine analysis by a noninvasive method and only obtaining culture if the urine analysis is positive – is reasonable. This means that a bag or free-flowing urine specimen would be appropriate for urinalysis, followed by catheterization/suprapubic aspiration if a culture is necessary. This would save approximately 90% of infants from invasive urine collection. Regardless, only catheter or suprapubic specimens are appropriate for urine culture.

The CPG also recommends that clinicians obtain blood culture on all of these infants. Inflammatory markers should be assessed in this cohort because avoiding lumbar puncture for CSF culture would be appropriate in this cohort if the inflammatory markers are negative. If CSF is obtained in this age cohort, enterovirus testing should be added to the testing regimen. Again, for any infant considered at higher risk for IBI on the basis of screening tests, the CPG recommends a 24- to 36-hour rule-out period with empirical antimicrobial treatment and active monitoring in the hospital.
 

Summary

The recommended approach for febrile infants 8-21 days old is relatively aggressive, with urine, blood, and CSF evaluation for IBI. Clinicians gain some leeway for infants age 22-28 days, but the guidelines recommend a more flexible approach to evaluating well-appearing, febrile infants age 29-60 days, when a two-step urine evaluation and inflammatory marker assessment can help clinicians and parents have a better discussion about the risk-benefit trade-offs of more aggressive testing and empirical treatment.

The author would like to thank Ken Roberts, MD, for his review and helpful comments on this summary of the CPG highlights. Summary points of the CPG were presented by the writing group at the 2021 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

William T. Basco, Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Sixteen years in the making, the American Academy of Pediatrics just released a new clinical practice guideline (CPG), “Evaluation and Management of Well-Appearing Febrile Infants 8-60 Days Old”. The recommendations were derived from interpretations of sequential studies in young, febrile, but well-appearing infants that covered invasive bacterial infection (IBI) incidence, diagnostic modalities, and treatment during the first 2 months of life, further refining approaches to evaluation and empirical treatment.
 

Pediatricians have long had solid information to help assess the risk for IBI among febrile infants aged 0-3 months, but there has been an ongoing desire to further refine the suggested evaluation of these very young infants. A study of febrile infants from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network along with subsequent evidence has identified the first 3 weeks of life as the period of highest risk for IBI, with risk declining in a graded fashion aged between 22 and 56 days.
 

Critical caveats

First, some caveats. Infants 0-7 days are not addressed in the CPG, and all should be treated as high risk and receive full IBI evaluation according to newborn protocols. Second, the recommendations apply only to “well-appearing” infants. Any ill-appearing infant should be treated as high risk and receive full IBI evaluation and begun on empirical antimicrobials. Third, even though the CPG deals with infants as young as 8-21 days old, the recommendations are to treat all infants in this age group as high risk, even if well-appearing, and complete full IBI evaluation and empirical therapy while awaiting results. Fourth, these guidelines apply only to infants born at 37 weeks’ gestation or more. Finally, the new CPG action statements are meant to be recommendations rather than a standard of medical care, leaving some leeway for clinician interpretation of individual patient scenarios. Where appropriate, parents’ values and preferences should be incorporated as part of shared decision-making.

The CPG divides young, febrile infants into three cohorts based on age:

• 8-21 days old
• 22-28 days old
• 29-60 days old

Age 8-21 days

For well-appearing febrile infants 8-21 days old, the CPG recommends a complete IBI evaluation that includes urine, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for culture, approaching all infants in this cohort as high risk. Inflammatory markers may be obtained, but the evidence is not comprehensive enough to evaluate their role in decision-making for this age group. A two-step urine evaluation method (urine analysis followed by culture if the urine analysis looks concerning) is not recommended for infants aged 8-21 days. Urine samples for culture from these young infants should be obtained by catheterization or suprapubic aspiration.

The CPG recommends drawing blood cultures and CSF by lumbar puncture from this cohort. These infants should be admitted to the hospital, treated empirically with antimicrobials, and actively monitored. However, if the cultures are negative at 24-36 hours, the clinician should discontinue antimicrobials and discharge the infant if there is no other reason for continued hospitalization.
 

Age 22-28 days

Well-appearing, febrile infants 22-28 days old are in an intermediate-risk zone. The recommendation for infants in this cohort is to obtain a urine specimen by catheterization or suprapubic aspiration for both urine analysis and culture. Clinicians may consider obtaining urine samples for analysis noninvasively (e.g., urine bag) in this cohort, but this is not the preferred method.

Blood culture should be obtained from all infants in this group. Inflammatory markers can help clinicians identify infants at greater risk for IBI, including meningitis. Previous data suggested that inflammatory markers such as serum white blood cell counts greater than 11,000/mcL, a serum absolute neutrophil count of greater than 4,000/mcL, and elevated C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels could help providers identify febrile infants with true IBI. A 2008 study demonstrated that procalcitonin had the best receiver operating characteristic curve in regard to predicting IBI in young febrile infants. Other research backed up that finding and identified cutoff values for procalcitonin levels greater than 1.0 ng/mL. The CPG recommends considering a procalcitonin value of 0.5 ng/mL or higher as positive, indicating that the infant is at greater risk for IBI and potentially should undergo an expanded IBI workup. Therefore, in infants aged 22-28 days, inflammatory markers can play a role in deciding whether to perform a lumbar puncture.

Many more nuanced recommendations for whether to and how to empirically treat with antimicrobials in this cohort can be found in the CPG, including whether to manage in the hospital or at home. Treatment recommendations vary greatly for this cohort on the basis of the tests obtained and whether tests were positive or negative at the initial evaluation.
 

Age 29-60 days

The CPG will be most helpful when clinicians are faced with well-appearing, febrile infants in the 29- to 60-day age group. As with the other groups, a urine evaluation is recommended; however, the CPG suggests that the two-step approach – obtaining a urine analysis by a noninvasive method and only obtaining culture if the urine analysis is positive – is reasonable. This means that a bag or free-flowing urine specimen would be appropriate for urinalysis, followed by catheterization/suprapubic aspiration if a culture is necessary. This would save approximately 90% of infants from invasive urine collection. Regardless, only catheter or suprapubic specimens are appropriate for urine culture.

The CPG also recommends that clinicians obtain blood culture on all of these infants. Inflammatory markers should be assessed in this cohort because avoiding lumbar puncture for CSF culture would be appropriate in this cohort if the inflammatory markers are negative. If CSF is obtained in this age cohort, enterovirus testing should be added to the testing regimen. Again, for any infant considered at higher risk for IBI on the basis of screening tests, the CPG recommends a 24- to 36-hour rule-out period with empirical antimicrobial treatment and active monitoring in the hospital.
 

Summary

The recommended approach for febrile infants 8-21 days old is relatively aggressive, with urine, blood, and CSF evaluation for IBI. Clinicians gain some leeway for infants age 22-28 days, but the guidelines recommend a more flexible approach to evaluating well-appearing, febrile infants age 29-60 days, when a two-step urine evaluation and inflammatory marker assessment can help clinicians and parents have a better discussion about the risk-benefit trade-offs of more aggressive testing and empirical treatment.

The author would like to thank Ken Roberts, MD, for his review and helpful comments on this summary of the CPG highlights. Summary points of the CPG were presented by the writing group at the 2021 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.

William T. Basco, Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Most U.S. prescriptions for the thyroid hormone replacement drug levothyroxine are not appropriate for patients with mild subclinical hypothyroidism, a trend that has remained steady for a decade despite evidence showing no significant benefits for those patients, new research shows.

“These results suggest substantial overuse of levothyroxine during the entire duration of the study, suggesting opportunities to improve care,” wrote the authors of the study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“There have been previous reports of increased levothyroxine overuse in the U.S., but this is the first paper to describe the nature of the drivers of the overuse,” first author Juan P. Brito, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, metabolism and nutrition, department of internal medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The findings underscore the need to improve awareness of the ongoing overuse, said the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“We hope [this study] resonates as a call to action for clinicians to stop treating patients with mild subclinical hypothyroidism,” they wrote.
 

Only 8% of those receiving levothyroxine had overt hypothyroidism

For the study, Dr. Brito and colleagues analyzed data of adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage who filled levothyroxine prescriptions between January 2008 and December 2018 and had thyrotropin levels measured within 3 months prior to the prescription. Patients with a history of thyroid surgery, thyroid cancer, central hypothyroidism, or who were pregnant, were excluded from the study.

In the 110,842 patients who started levothyroxine during the study period, there were no significant changes in median thyrotropin levels at the time of treatment initiation, with a median level in 2008 of 5.8 mIU/L and a level in 2018 of 5.3 mIU/L (P = .79).

In a subanalysis of 58,706 patients for whom thyrotropin as well as free thyroxine (FT4 or T4) levels were available – which allowed for the determination of the level of hypothyroidism – levothyroxine was initiated for overt hypothyroidism in only 8.4% of cases.

In as many as 61.0% of cases, patients had subclinical hypothyroidism, and in 30.5% of cases, patients had normal thyroid levels.

While the proportion of adults with overt hypothyroidism initiated on levothyroxine significantly increased over the 10 years (7.6% to 8.4%; P = .02), rates of those with subclinical hypothyroidism remained unchanged (59.3% to 65.7%; P = .36), as did the proportion with normal thyroid function (32.9% to 26.2%; P = .84).

A closer look at patients specifically with subclinical hypothyroidism showed there were also no changes in the proportion with mild subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level of 4.5 mIU/L to <10 mIU/L with normal FT4 or T4) between the beginning and end of the study period (48.2% vs. 57.9%; P = .73). Rates of moderate subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level 10-19.9 mIU/L) were also similar (8.5% to 6.4%; P = .16).
 

No significant benefit, but ample undesirable effects

The authors underscore that levothyroxine has been shown time and again to offer no significant benefit to patients with subclinical hypothyroidism of any type, emphasized in a 2018 meta-analysis of 21 randomized, controlled trials.

“Frequent initiation of levothyroxine in these patients is at odds with evidence demonstrating no significant association of levothyroxine replacement with measures of health-related quality of life, thyroid-related symptoms, depressive symptoms, fatigue, or cognitive function,” they explained.

In addition to showing no benefit for subclinical hypothyroidism, levothyroxine is associated with a host of unwanted side effects, noted editorialists William K. Silverstein, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, department of medicine, University of Toronto, and Deborah Grady, MD, of the department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Some studies have shown a link between long-term levothyroxine therapy and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cardiac dysrhythmias, osteoporosis, and fractures, they explained.

In addition, unnecessary treatment “increases pill burden and costs, necessitates routine physician visits and blood work, and requires modification of daily routines so that patients can take medications on an empty stomach,” the editorialists wrote.

Importantly, evidence shows that once levothyroxine treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism is started, most patients will continue the therapy for life, they added.

The fact that levothyroxine is among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with about 7% of the population estimated to have an active prescription when overt hypothyroidism affects only about 0.2%-2% of the population, underscores the extent of levothyroxine overuse, Dr. Silverstein said in an interview. 

“The really notable surprise was how pervasive inappropriate use of levothyroxine was,” he said. “The fact that only 8% of patients had a biochemical indication for treatment is striking.”
 

Potential solutions: ‘Shift the conversation’

In terms of potential solutions to the problem, Dr. Silverstein suggested laboratories change reference ranges so that only thyrotropin values greater than 10 mIU/L are reported as abnormal.

“Studies have shown that changing the thyrotropin reference range is associated with clinicians’ prescribing patterns,” he noted.

Dr. Brito agreed, noting that “there are many guidelines with different hypothyroidism thresholds, so we need to be more consistent about the message to clinicians.

“In addition, we have to come up with different approaches to symptoms that have nothing to do with levothyroxine,” Dr. Brito said.

“I try to explain to patients that it’s very unlikely that subclinical hypothyroidism would be driving significant symptoms like fatigue, weight gain, and hair loss,” Dr. Brito said. “So, one approach is to shift the conversation from how your thyroid is causing this to ‘how are we going to treat the symptoms?’ ”

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. Dr. Silverstein has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most U.S. prescriptions for the thyroid hormone replacement drug levothyroxine are not appropriate for patients with mild subclinical hypothyroidism, a trend that has remained steady for a decade despite evidence showing no significant benefits for those patients, new research shows.

“These results suggest substantial overuse of levothyroxine during the entire duration of the study, suggesting opportunities to improve care,” wrote the authors of the study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“There have been previous reports of increased levothyroxine overuse in the U.S., but this is the first paper to describe the nature of the drivers of the overuse,” first author Juan P. Brito, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, metabolism and nutrition, department of internal medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The findings underscore the need to improve awareness of the ongoing overuse, said the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“We hope [this study] resonates as a call to action for clinicians to stop treating patients with mild subclinical hypothyroidism,” they wrote.
 

Only 8% of those receiving levothyroxine had overt hypothyroidism

For the study, Dr. Brito and colleagues analyzed data of adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage who filled levothyroxine prescriptions between January 2008 and December 2018 and had thyrotropin levels measured within 3 months prior to the prescription. Patients with a history of thyroid surgery, thyroid cancer, central hypothyroidism, or who were pregnant, were excluded from the study.

In the 110,842 patients who started levothyroxine during the study period, there were no significant changes in median thyrotropin levels at the time of treatment initiation, with a median level in 2008 of 5.8 mIU/L and a level in 2018 of 5.3 mIU/L (P = .79).

In a subanalysis of 58,706 patients for whom thyrotropin as well as free thyroxine (FT4 or T4) levels were available – which allowed for the determination of the level of hypothyroidism – levothyroxine was initiated for overt hypothyroidism in only 8.4% of cases.

In as many as 61.0% of cases, patients had subclinical hypothyroidism, and in 30.5% of cases, patients had normal thyroid levels.

While the proportion of adults with overt hypothyroidism initiated on levothyroxine significantly increased over the 10 years (7.6% to 8.4%; P = .02), rates of those with subclinical hypothyroidism remained unchanged (59.3% to 65.7%; P = .36), as did the proportion with normal thyroid function (32.9% to 26.2%; P = .84).

A closer look at patients specifically with subclinical hypothyroidism showed there were also no changes in the proportion with mild subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level of 4.5 mIU/L to <10 mIU/L with normal FT4 or T4) between the beginning and end of the study period (48.2% vs. 57.9%; P = .73). Rates of moderate subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level 10-19.9 mIU/L) were also similar (8.5% to 6.4%; P = .16).
 

No significant benefit, but ample undesirable effects

The authors underscore that levothyroxine has been shown time and again to offer no significant benefit to patients with subclinical hypothyroidism of any type, emphasized in a 2018 meta-analysis of 21 randomized, controlled trials.

“Frequent initiation of levothyroxine in these patients is at odds with evidence demonstrating no significant association of levothyroxine replacement with measures of health-related quality of life, thyroid-related symptoms, depressive symptoms, fatigue, or cognitive function,” they explained.

In addition to showing no benefit for subclinical hypothyroidism, levothyroxine is associated with a host of unwanted side effects, noted editorialists William K. Silverstein, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, department of medicine, University of Toronto, and Deborah Grady, MD, of the department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Some studies have shown a link between long-term levothyroxine therapy and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cardiac dysrhythmias, osteoporosis, and fractures, they explained.

In addition, unnecessary treatment “increases pill burden and costs, necessitates routine physician visits and blood work, and requires modification of daily routines so that patients can take medications on an empty stomach,” the editorialists wrote.

Importantly, evidence shows that once levothyroxine treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism is started, most patients will continue the therapy for life, they added.

The fact that levothyroxine is among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with about 7% of the population estimated to have an active prescription when overt hypothyroidism affects only about 0.2%-2% of the population, underscores the extent of levothyroxine overuse, Dr. Silverstein said in an interview. 

“The really notable surprise was how pervasive inappropriate use of levothyroxine was,” he said. “The fact that only 8% of patients had a biochemical indication for treatment is striking.”
 

Potential solutions: ‘Shift the conversation’

In terms of potential solutions to the problem, Dr. Silverstein suggested laboratories change reference ranges so that only thyrotropin values greater than 10 mIU/L are reported as abnormal.

“Studies have shown that changing the thyrotropin reference range is associated with clinicians’ prescribing patterns,” he noted.

Dr. Brito agreed, noting that “there are many guidelines with different hypothyroidism thresholds, so we need to be more consistent about the message to clinicians.

“In addition, we have to come up with different approaches to symptoms that have nothing to do with levothyroxine,” Dr. Brito said.

“I try to explain to patients that it’s very unlikely that subclinical hypothyroidism would be driving significant symptoms like fatigue, weight gain, and hair loss,” Dr. Brito said. “So, one approach is to shift the conversation from how your thyroid is causing this to ‘how are we going to treat the symptoms?’ ”

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. Dr. Silverstein has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most U.S. prescriptions for the thyroid hormone replacement drug levothyroxine are not appropriate for patients with mild subclinical hypothyroidism, a trend that has remained steady for a decade despite evidence showing no significant benefits for those patients, new research shows.

“These results suggest substantial overuse of levothyroxine during the entire duration of the study, suggesting opportunities to improve care,” wrote the authors of the study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“There have been previous reports of increased levothyroxine overuse in the U.S., but this is the first paper to describe the nature of the drivers of the overuse,” first author Juan P. Brito, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, metabolism and nutrition, department of internal medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The findings underscore the need to improve awareness of the ongoing overuse, said the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“We hope [this study] resonates as a call to action for clinicians to stop treating patients with mild subclinical hypothyroidism,” they wrote.
 

Only 8% of those receiving levothyroxine had overt hypothyroidism

For the study, Dr. Brito and colleagues analyzed data of adults enrolled in Medicare Advantage who filled levothyroxine prescriptions between January 2008 and December 2018 and had thyrotropin levels measured within 3 months prior to the prescription. Patients with a history of thyroid surgery, thyroid cancer, central hypothyroidism, or who were pregnant, were excluded from the study.

In the 110,842 patients who started levothyroxine during the study period, there were no significant changes in median thyrotropin levels at the time of treatment initiation, with a median level in 2008 of 5.8 mIU/L and a level in 2018 of 5.3 mIU/L (P = .79).

In a subanalysis of 58,706 patients for whom thyrotropin as well as free thyroxine (FT4 or T4) levels were available – which allowed for the determination of the level of hypothyroidism – levothyroxine was initiated for overt hypothyroidism in only 8.4% of cases.

In as many as 61.0% of cases, patients had subclinical hypothyroidism, and in 30.5% of cases, patients had normal thyroid levels.

While the proportion of adults with overt hypothyroidism initiated on levothyroxine significantly increased over the 10 years (7.6% to 8.4%; P = .02), rates of those with subclinical hypothyroidism remained unchanged (59.3% to 65.7%; P = .36), as did the proportion with normal thyroid function (32.9% to 26.2%; P = .84).

A closer look at patients specifically with subclinical hypothyroidism showed there were also no changes in the proportion with mild subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level of 4.5 mIU/L to <10 mIU/L with normal FT4 or T4) between the beginning and end of the study period (48.2% vs. 57.9%; P = .73). Rates of moderate subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level 10-19.9 mIU/L) were also similar (8.5% to 6.4%; P = .16).
 

No significant benefit, but ample undesirable effects

The authors underscore that levothyroxine has been shown time and again to offer no significant benefit to patients with subclinical hypothyroidism of any type, emphasized in a 2018 meta-analysis of 21 randomized, controlled trials.

“Frequent initiation of levothyroxine in these patients is at odds with evidence demonstrating no significant association of levothyroxine replacement with measures of health-related quality of life, thyroid-related symptoms, depressive symptoms, fatigue, or cognitive function,” they explained.

In addition to showing no benefit for subclinical hypothyroidism, levothyroxine is associated with a host of unwanted side effects, noted editorialists William K. Silverstein, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, department of medicine, University of Toronto, and Deborah Grady, MD, of the department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

Some studies have shown a link between long-term levothyroxine therapy and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cardiac dysrhythmias, osteoporosis, and fractures, they explained.

In addition, unnecessary treatment “increases pill burden and costs, necessitates routine physician visits and blood work, and requires modification of daily routines so that patients can take medications on an empty stomach,” the editorialists wrote.

Importantly, evidence shows that once levothyroxine treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism is started, most patients will continue the therapy for life, they added.

The fact that levothyroxine is among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with about 7% of the population estimated to have an active prescription when overt hypothyroidism affects only about 0.2%-2% of the population, underscores the extent of levothyroxine overuse, Dr. Silverstein said in an interview. 

“The really notable surprise was how pervasive inappropriate use of levothyroxine was,” he said. “The fact that only 8% of patients had a biochemical indication for treatment is striking.”
 

Potential solutions: ‘Shift the conversation’

In terms of potential solutions to the problem, Dr. Silverstein suggested laboratories change reference ranges so that only thyrotropin values greater than 10 mIU/L are reported as abnormal.

“Studies have shown that changing the thyrotropin reference range is associated with clinicians’ prescribing patterns,” he noted.

Dr. Brito agreed, noting that “there are many guidelines with different hypothyroidism thresholds, so we need to be more consistent about the message to clinicians.

“In addition, we have to come up with different approaches to symptoms that have nothing to do with levothyroxine,” Dr. Brito said.

“I try to explain to patients that it’s very unlikely that subclinical hypothyroidism would be driving significant symptoms like fatigue, weight gain, and hair loss,” Dr. Brito said. “So, one approach is to shift the conversation from how your thyroid is causing this to ‘how are we going to treat the symptoms?’ ”

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. Dr. Silverstein has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.

On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.

Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.

“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.

The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
 

Significant reduction

So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.

The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.

The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.

“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.

However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.

“The effect dissipates after the first 6 months, perhaps because cannabis ultimately is not a treatment for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Drake said.

Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.

“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.

On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.

Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.

“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.

The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
 

Significant reduction

So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.

The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.

The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.

“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.

However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.

“The effect dissipates after the first 6 months, perhaps because cannabis ultimately is not a treatment for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Drake said.

Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.

“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

State laws permitting recreational marijuana use have not led to an increase in opioid-related emergency department visits, as many had feared.

On the contrary, states that legalize recreational marijuana may see a short-term decrease in opioid-related ED visits in the first 6 months, after which rates may return to prelegalization levels, new research suggests.

Previous research suggests that individuals may reduce the use of opioids when they have an alternative and that cannabis can provide pain relief.

“At the same time, we often hear claims from politicians that we should not legalize cannabis because it may act as a ‘gateway drug’ that leads to use of other drugs,” lead researcher Coleman Drake, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told this news organization.

“Our findings indicate that cannabis legalization does not effect any increase in opioid-related ED visits, contradicting the gateway drug explanation,” Dr. Drake said.

The study was published online July 12 in Health Economics.
 

Significant reduction

So far, 19 states have legalized recreational cannabis, meaning that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in a state that allows recreational cannabis use.

The investigators analyzed data on opioid-related ED visits from 29 states between 2011 and 2017. Four states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada – legalized recreational marijuana during the study period; the remaining 25 states did not.

The four states with recreational cannabis laws experienced a 7.6% reduction in opioid-related ED visits for 6 months after the law went into effect in comparison with the states that did not legalize recreational marijuana.

“This isn’t trivial – a decline in opioid-related emergency department visits, even if only for 6 months, is a welcome public health development,” Dr. Drake said in a statement.

Not surprisingly, these effects are driven by men and adults aged 25 to 44 years. “These are populations that are more likely to use cannabis, and the reduction in opioid-related ED visits that we find is concentrated among them,” Dr. Drake told this news organization.

However, the downturn in opioid-related ED visits after making marijuana legal was only temporary.

“The effect dissipates after the first 6 months, perhaps because cannabis ultimately is not a treatment for opioid use disorder,” Dr. Drake said.

Encouragingly, he said, the data show that opioid-related ED visits don’t increase above baseline after recreational marijuana laws are adopted.

“We conclude that cannabis legalization likely is not a panacea for the opioid epidemic, but there are some helpful effects,” Dr. Drake said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A Haitian-born doctor, who was based in Florida for more than 2 decades, has been arrested as a central suspect in the assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse, according to The New York Times.

About two dozen people have been arrested as suspects, the newspaper reported, though police believe Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was plotting to become president.

“He arrived by private plane in June with political objectives and contacted a private security firm to recruit the people who committed this act,” Léon Charles, Haiti’s national police chief, said during a news conference on July 11.

The firm, called CTU Security, is a Venezuelan company based in Miami, Mr. Charles said. During a raid at Mr. Sanon’s home in Port-au-Prince, police found six rifles, 20 boxes of bullets, 24 unused shooting targets, pistol holsters, and a hat with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency logo.

“This initial mission that was given to these assailants was to protect the individual named Emmanuel Sanon, but afterwards, the mission changed,” Mr. Charles said.

The new “mission” was to arrest President Moïse and install Mr. Sanon as president, The New York Times reported, though Mr. Charles didn’t explain when the mission changed to assassination or how Mr. Sanon could have taken control of the government.

President Moïse was shot to death on July 7 at his home in Port-au-Prince by a “team of commandos,” according to The Washington Post. On July 9, Haiti asked the U.S. to send troops to the country to protect its airport and key infrastructure.

The announcement of Mr. Sanon’s arrest came hours after FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials arrived in Haiti on July 11 to discuss how the U.S. can offer assistance, the newspaper reported.

Mr. Sanon has a YouTube channel with three political campaign videos from 2011, which include discussions about Haitian politics, according to Forbes. In one of the videos, titled “Dr. Christian Sanon – Leadership for Haiti,” Mr. Sanon talks about corruption in the country and presents himself as a potential leader.

Mr. Sanon lived in Florida for more than 20 years, ranging from the Tampa Bay area to South Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Public records show that he had more than a dozen businesses registered in the state, including medical services and real estate, though most are inactive.

Mr. Sanon is the third person with links to the U.S. who has been arrested in connection with the assassination, the Miami Herald reported. Two Haitian-Americans from southern Florida – James Solages, 35, and Joseph G. Vincent, 55 – were arrested by local police. They claimed they were working as translators for the assassins.

The first lady, Martine Moïse, was wounded in the attack and is now receiving treatment at a hospital in Miami, the newspaper reported.

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

A Haitian-born doctor, who was based in Florida for more than 2 decades, has been arrested as a central suspect in the assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse, according to The New York Times.

About two dozen people have been arrested as suspects, the newspaper reported, though police believe Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was plotting to become president.

“He arrived by private plane in June with political objectives and contacted a private security firm to recruit the people who committed this act,” Léon Charles, Haiti’s national police chief, said during a news conference on July 11.

The firm, called CTU Security, is a Venezuelan company based in Miami, Mr. Charles said. During a raid at Mr. Sanon’s home in Port-au-Prince, police found six rifles, 20 boxes of bullets, 24 unused shooting targets, pistol holsters, and a hat with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency logo.

“This initial mission that was given to these assailants was to protect the individual named Emmanuel Sanon, but afterwards, the mission changed,” Mr. Charles said.

The new “mission” was to arrest President Moïse and install Mr. Sanon as president, The New York Times reported, though Mr. Charles didn’t explain when the mission changed to assassination or how Mr. Sanon could have taken control of the government.

President Moïse was shot to death on July 7 at his home in Port-au-Prince by a “team of commandos,” according to The Washington Post. On July 9, Haiti asked the U.S. to send troops to the country to protect its airport and key infrastructure.

The announcement of Mr. Sanon’s arrest came hours after FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials arrived in Haiti on July 11 to discuss how the U.S. can offer assistance, the newspaper reported.

Mr. Sanon has a YouTube channel with three political campaign videos from 2011, which include discussions about Haitian politics, according to Forbes. In one of the videos, titled “Dr. Christian Sanon – Leadership for Haiti,” Mr. Sanon talks about corruption in the country and presents himself as a potential leader.

Mr. Sanon lived in Florida for more than 20 years, ranging from the Tampa Bay area to South Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Public records show that he had more than a dozen businesses registered in the state, including medical services and real estate, though most are inactive.

Mr. Sanon is the third person with links to the U.S. who has been arrested in connection with the assassination, the Miami Herald reported. Two Haitian-Americans from southern Florida – James Solages, 35, and Joseph G. Vincent, 55 – were arrested by local police. They claimed they were working as translators for the assassins.

The first lady, Martine Moïse, was wounded in the attack and is now receiving treatment at a hospital in Miami, the newspaper reported.

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

A Haitian-born doctor, who was based in Florida for more than 2 decades, has been arrested as a central suspect in the assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moïse, according to The New York Times.

About two dozen people have been arrested as suspects, the newspaper reported, though police believe Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, was plotting to become president.

“He arrived by private plane in June with political objectives and contacted a private security firm to recruit the people who committed this act,” Léon Charles, Haiti’s national police chief, said during a news conference on July 11.

The firm, called CTU Security, is a Venezuelan company based in Miami, Mr. Charles said. During a raid at Mr. Sanon’s home in Port-au-Prince, police found six rifles, 20 boxes of bullets, 24 unused shooting targets, pistol holsters, and a hat with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency logo.

“This initial mission that was given to these assailants was to protect the individual named Emmanuel Sanon, but afterwards, the mission changed,” Mr. Charles said.

The new “mission” was to arrest President Moïse and install Mr. Sanon as president, The New York Times reported, though Mr. Charles didn’t explain when the mission changed to assassination or how Mr. Sanon could have taken control of the government.

President Moïse was shot to death on July 7 at his home in Port-au-Prince by a “team of commandos,” according to The Washington Post. On July 9, Haiti asked the U.S. to send troops to the country to protect its airport and key infrastructure.

The announcement of Mr. Sanon’s arrest came hours after FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials arrived in Haiti on July 11 to discuss how the U.S. can offer assistance, the newspaper reported.

Mr. Sanon has a YouTube channel with three political campaign videos from 2011, which include discussions about Haitian politics, according to Forbes. In one of the videos, titled “Dr. Christian Sanon – Leadership for Haiti,” Mr. Sanon talks about corruption in the country and presents himself as a potential leader.

Mr. Sanon lived in Florida for more than 20 years, ranging from the Tampa Bay area to South Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Public records show that he had more than a dozen businesses registered in the state, including medical services and real estate, though most are inactive.

Mr. Sanon is the third person with links to the U.S. who has been arrested in connection with the assassination, the Miami Herald reported. Two Haitian-Americans from southern Florida – James Solages, 35, and Joseph G. Vincent, 55 – were arrested by local police. They claimed they were working as translators for the assassins.

The first lady, Martine Moïse, was wounded in the attack and is now receiving treatment at a hospital in Miami, the newspaper reported.

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

A new draft consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) addresses diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults.  

The impetus for the document comes from the “highly influential” EASD-ADA consensus report on the management of type 2 diabetes, which led to the realization that a comparable document was needed for adults with type 1 diabetes, said writing panel cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In recent years, there have been rapid advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes together with a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with [it],” Dr. Peters said.

She noted that although there is already some guidance available for the management of type 1 diabetes in adults, “this gets admixed into broader guidelines, and many of those are mostly derived from data in people with type 2 diabetes.”  

The new draft document was coauthored by 14 content experts in type 1 diabetes, with equal numbers from the United States and Europe.
 

We want to be helpful to clinicians

Topics covered include diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals of therapy and glycemic targets, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and additional behavioral considerations, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (including pregnant women, older adults, and inpatient management), and emergent/future perspectives, including beta-cell replacement and immunotherapy.

At the end of the document are tables of glycemic targets for adults with type 1 diabetes, schedule of care, nonglycemic factors that alter A1c levels, standardized continuous glucose meter (CGM) metrics for clinical care, examples of subcutaneous insulin regimens, and the various properties of approved and nonapproved adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes, including metformin, pramlintide, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.  

Several colorful flowcharts are also provided, including algorithms for diagnosing and managing type 1 diabetes in adults.

Document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the Diabetes Care Center’s Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization: “We want it to be helpful to clinicians who are diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults or caring for adults with type 1 diabetes, whether diagnosed in childhood or adulthood.”

The authors presented an overview of the document in a symposium on June 28 at the virtual ADA scientific sessions. The final version will be presented Oct. 1 at the EASD 2021 annual meeting.

The draft document and video of the ADA meeting presentation are both available on the ADA website.
 

New algorithm to reduce misdiagnosis of type 1 diabetes in adults

Misdiagnosis of adult-onset type 1 diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of those who develop the condition after age 30 years, said J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, medical director, Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany.

There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming more prevalent at younger ages, C-peptide levels may still be relatively high at the time of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, and islet autoantibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

“No single feature confirms type 1 diabetes in isolation,” Dr. de Vries noted.

The document provides a detailed diagnostic algorithm specifically for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, starting with autoantibody measurement. If the diagnosis isn’t confirmed that way, the algorithm advises investigating for monogenic diabetes, including use of a maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) calculator and subsequent C-peptide measurement.

Measurement of C-peptide is also recommended if the diabetes type is still uncertain more than 3 years after diabetes onset in those treated with insulin, because by that point it is likely to be <200 pmol/L in people with type 1 diabetes.  
 

Clear statements on diabetes technology, preferred insulins

The draft document clearly states that physiologic insulin replacement using a pump or multiple daily injections, CGM, and analog rather than human insulin are standards of care for adults with type 1 diabetes. Use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems is advised when available, as they offer the “greatest benefits.”

However, the document also notes that in cases of cost barriers, subcutaneous regimens of human regular and NPH insulin may be used. It cautions, though, that these may result in higher glucose variability, higher risk of hypoglycemia, and less lifestyle flexibility.

Dr. Kirkman told this news organization: “Using human insulins such as NPH and Regular in type 1 diabetes is definitely not preferred, but sometimes due to people’s inability to afford analogs we have to use them. People need to know how to use them safely.”

As for the do-it-yourself insulin delivery systems, which many with type 1 diabetes now use with open-source software algorithms that reverse-engineer older pumps, the document advises that health care providers shouldn’t actively recommend them as they’re not approved by regulatory authorities, but should also “respect the individual’s right to make informed choices and continue to offer support,” Dr. Kirkman said when presenting the insulin therapy section.
 

Psychosocial aspects of type 1 diabetes ‘underappreciated’

Special emphasis is placed on psychosocial support, which may be overlooked in adults, Dr. Kirkman noted.

“Clinicians probably underappreciate what people with type 1 diabetes go through on a daily basis. A lot of the evidence out there regarding psychosocial issues is in children and families of children with type 1 diabetes, or in adults with type 2 diabetes ... Maximizing quality of life needs to be at the forefront of care, not just focusing on glycemic goals.”

Indeed, between 20% and 40% of people with type 1 diabetes experience diabetes-related emotional distress – including 15% with depression – particularly at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop, noted Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

To address this, the draft advises that “self-management difficulties, psychological, and social problems” be screened periodically and monitored using validated screening tools.

“Health care providers should be proficient at asking questions about and discussing emotional health, psychological needs, and social challenges as part of the consultation,” Dr. Snoek said.

Dr. Peters disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, and Zealand, Omada, and Teladoc. Dr. Kirkman has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Bayer. Dr. de Vries disclosed ties with Adocia, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Eli Lilly, and Afon Technology. Dr. Snoek reported ties with Roche Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

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

A new draft consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) addresses diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults.  

The impetus for the document comes from the “highly influential” EASD-ADA consensus report on the management of type 2 diabetes, which led to the realization that a comparable document was needed for adults with type 1 diabetes, said writing panel cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In recent years, there have been rapid advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes together with a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with [it],” Dr. Peters said.

She noted that although there is already some guidance available for the management of type 1 diabetes in adults, “this gets admixed into broader guidelines, and many of those are mostly derived from data in people with type 2 diabetes.”  

The new draft document was coauthored by 14 content experts in type 1 diabetes, with equal numbers from the United States and Europe.
 

We want to be helpful to clinicians

Topics covered include diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals of therapy and glycemic targets, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and additional behavioral considerations, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (including pregnant women, older adults, and inpatient management), and emergent/future perspectives, including beta-cell replacement and immunotherapy.

At the end of the document are tables of glycemic targets for adults with type 1 diabetes, schedule of care, nonglycemic factors that alter A1c levels, standardized continuous glucose meter (CGM) metrics for clinical care, examples of subcutaneous insulin regimens, and the various properties of approved and nonapproved adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes, including metformin, pramlintide, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.  

Several colorful flowcharts are also provided, including algorithms for diagnosing and managing type 1 diabetes in adults.

Document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the Diabetes Care Center’s Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization: “We want it to be helpful to clinicians who are diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults or caring for adults with type 1 diabetes, whether diagnosed in childhood or adulthood.”

The authors presented an overview of the document in a symposium on June 28 at the virtual ADA scientific sessions. The final version will be presented Oct. 1 at the EASD 2021 annual meeting.

The draft document and video of the ADA meeting presentation are both available on the ADA website.
 

New algorithm to reduce misdiagnosis of type 1 diabetes in adults

Misdiagnosis of adult-onset type 1 diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of those who develop the condition after age 30 years, said J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, medical director, Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany.

There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming more prevalent at younger ages, C-peptide levels may still be relatively high at the time of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, and islet autoantibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

“No single feature confirms type 1 diabetes in isolation,” Dr. de Vries noted.

The document provides a detailed diagnostic algorithm specifically for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, starting with autoantibody measurement. If the diagnosis isn’t confirmed that way, the algorithm advises investigating for monogenic diabetes, including use of a maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) calculator and subsequent C-peptide measurement.

Measurement of C-peptide is also recommended if the diabetes type is still uncertain more than 3 years after diabetes onset in those treated with insulin, because by that point it is likely to be <200 pmol/L in people with type 1 diabetes.  
 

Clear statements on diabetes technology, preferred insulins

The draft document clearly states that physiologic insulin replacement using a pump or multiple daily injections, CGM, and analog rather than human insulin are standards of care for adults with type 1 diabetes. Use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems is advised when available, as they offer the “greatest benefits.”

However, the document also notes that in cases of cost barriers, subcutaneous regimens of human regular and NPH insulin may be used. It cautions, though, that these may result in higher glucose variability, higher risk of hypoglycemia, and less lifestyle flexibility.

Dr. Kirkman told this news organization: “Using human insulins such as NPH and Regular in type 1 diabetes is definitely not preferred, but sometimes due to people’s inability to afford analogs we have to use them. People need to know how to use them safely.”

As for the do-it-yourself insulin delivery systems, which many with type 1 diabetes now use with open-source software algorithms that reverse-engineer older pumps, the document advises that health care providers shouldn’t actively recommend them as they’re not approved by regulatory authorities, but should also “respect the individual’s right to make informed choices and continue to offer support,” Dr. Kirkman said when presenting the insulin therapy section.
 

Psychosocial aspects of type 1 diabetes ‘underappreciated’

Special emphasis is placed on psychosocial support, which may be overlooked in adults, Dr. Kirkman noted.

“Clinicians probably underappreciate what people with type 1 diabetes go through on a daily basis. A lot of the evidence out there regarding psychosocial issues is in children and families of children with type 1 diabetes, or in adults with type 2 diabetes ... Maximizing quality of life needs to be at the forefront of care, not just focusing on glycemic goals.”

Indeed, between 20% and 40% of people with type 1 diabetes experience diabetes-related emotional distress – including 15% with depression – particularly at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop, noted Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

To address this, the draft advises that “self-management difficulties, psychological, and social problems” be screened periodically and monitored using validated screening tools.

“Health care providers should be proficient at asking questions about and discussing emotional health, psychological needs, and social challenges as part of the consultation,” Dr. Snoek said.

Dr. Peters disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, and Zealand, Omada, and Teladoc. Dr. Kirkman has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Bayer. Dr. de Vries disclosed ties with Adocia, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Eli Lilly, and Afon Technology. Dr. Snoek reported ties with Roche Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

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

A new draft consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) addresses diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults.  

The impetus for the document comes from the “highly influential” EASD-ADA consensus report on the management of type 2 diabetes, which led to the realization that a comparable document was needed for adults with type 1 diabetes, said writing panel cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In recent years, there have been rapid advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes together with a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with [it],” Dr. Peters said.

She noted that although there is already some guidance available for the management of type 1 diabetes in adults, “this gets admixed into broader guidelines, and many of those are mostly derived from data in people with type 2 diabetes.”  

The new draft document was coauthored by 14 content experts in type 1 diabetes, with equal numbers from the United States and Europe.
 

We want to be helpful to clinicians

Topics covered include diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals of therapy and glycemic targets, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and additional behavioral considerations, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (including pregnant women, older adults, and inpatient management), and emergent/future perspectives, including beta-cell replacement and immunotherapy.

At the end of the document are tables of glycemic targets for adults with type 1 diabetes, schedule of care, nonglycemic factors that alter A1c levels, standardized continuous glucose meter (CGM) metrics for clinical care, examples of subcutaneous insulin regimens, and the various properties of approved and nonapproved adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes, including metformin, pramlintide, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.  

Several colorful flowcharts are also provided, including algorithms for diagnosing and managing type 1 diabetes in adults.

Document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the Diabetes Care Center’s Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization: “We want it to be helpful to clinicians who are diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults or caring for adults with type 1 diabetes, whether diagnosed in childhood or adulthood.”

The authors presented an overview of the document in a symposium on June 28 at the virtual ADA scientific sessions. The final version will be presented Oct. 1 at the EASD 2021 annual meeting.

The draft document and video of the ADA meeting presentation are both available on the ADA website.
 

New algorithm to reduce misdiagnosis of type 1 diabetes in adults

Misdiagnosis of adult-onset type 1 diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of those who develop the condition after age 30 years, said J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, medical director, Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany.

There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming more prevalent at younger ages, C-peptide levels may still be relatively high at the time of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, and islet autoantibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

“No single feature confirms type 1 diabetes in isolation,” Dr. de Vries noted.

The document provides a detailed diagnostic algorithm specifically for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, starting with autoantibody measurement. If the diagnosis isn’t confirmed that way, the algorithm advises investigating for monogenic diabetes, including use of a maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) calculator and subsequent C-peptide measurement.

Measurement of C-peptide is also recommended if the diabetes type is still uncertain more than 3 years after diabetes onset in those treated with insulin, because by that point it is likely to be <200 pmol/L in people with type 1 diabetes.  
 

Clear statements on diabetes technology, preferred insulins

The draft document clearly states that physiologic insulin replacement using a pump or multiple daily injections, CGM, and analog rather than human insulin are standards of care for adults with type 1 diabetes. Use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems is advised when available, as they offer the “greatest benefits.”

However, the document also notes that in cases of cost barriers, subcutaneous regimens of human regular and NPH insulin may be used. It cautions, though, that these may result in higher glucose variability, higher risk of hypoglycemia, and less lifestyle flexibility.

Dr. Kirkman told this news organization: “Using human insulins such as NPH and Regular in type 1 diabetes is definitely not preferred, but sometimes due to people’s inability to afford analogs we have to use them. People need to know how to use them safely.”

As for the do-it-yourself insulin delivery systems, which many with type 1 diabetes now use with open-source software algorithms that reverse-engineer older pumps, the document advises that health care providers shouldn’t actively recommend them as they’re not approved by regulatory authorities, but should also “respect the individual’s right to make informed choices and continue to offer support,” Dr. Kirkman said when presenting the insulin therapy section.
 

Psychosocial aspects of type 1 diabetes ‘underappreciated’

Special emphasis is placed on psychosocial support, which may be overlooked in adults, Dr. Kirkman noted.

“Clinicians probably underappreciate what people with type 1 diabetes go through on a daily basis. A lot of the evidence out there regarding psychosocial issues is in children and families of children with type 1 diabetes, or in adults with type 2 diabetes ... Maximizing quality of life needs to be at the forefront of care, not just focusing on glycemic goals.”

Indeed, between 20% and 40% of people with type 1 diabetes experience diabetes-related emotional distress – including 15% with depression – particularly at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop, noted Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

To address this, the draft advises that “self-management difficulties, psychological, and social problems” be screened periodically and monitored using validated screening tools.

“Health care providers should be proficient at asking questions about and discussing emotional health, psychological needs, and social challenges as part of the consultation,” Dr. Snoek said.

Dr. Peters disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, and Zealand, Omada, and Teladoc. Dr. Kirkman has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Bayer. Dr. de Vries disclosed ties with Adocia, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Eli Lilly, and Afon Technology. Dr. Snoek reported ties with Roche Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

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