MDedge Emergency Medicine

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

For pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs), immediately prescribing antibiotics may do more harm than good, based on prospective data from 436 children treated by primary care pediatricians in Spain.

In the largest trial of its kind to date, children who were immediately prescribed antibiotics showed no significant difference in symptom severity or duration from those who received a delayed prescription for antibiotics, or no prescription at all; yet those in the immediate-prescription group had a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, reported lead author Gemma Mas-Dalmau, MD, of the Sant Pau Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, and colleagues.

“Most RTIs are self-limiting, and antibiotics hardly alter the course of the condition, yet antibiotics are frequently prescribed for these conditions,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Antibiotic prescription for RTIs in children is especially considered to be inappropriately high.”

This clinical behavior is driven by several factors, according to Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues, including limited diagnostics in primary care, pressure to meet parental expectations, and concern for possible complications if antibiotics are withheld or delayed.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD and Bonnie F. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that “children in the United States receive more than one antibiotic prescription per year, driven largely by acute RTIs.”

Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit noted that some RTIs are indeed caused by bacteria, and therefore benefit from antibiotics, but it’s “not always easy” to identify these cases.

“Primary care, urgent care, and emergency medicine clinicians have a hard job,” they wrote.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in which a prescription is filled upon persistence or worsening of symptoms, can balance clinical caution and antibiotic stewardship.

“An example of this approach is acute otitis media, in which delayed prescribing has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic exposure,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit.

In a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of both adults and children with RTIs, antibiotic prescriptions, whether immediate, delayed, or not given at all, had no significant effect on most symptoms or complications. Although several randomized trials have evaluated delayed antibiotic prescriptions in children, Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues described the current body of evidence as “scant.”

The present study built upon this knowledge base by prospectively following 436 children treated at 39 primary care centers in Spain from 2012 to 2016. Patients were between 2 and 14 years of age and presented for rhinosinusitis, pharyngitis, acute otitis media, or acute bronchitis. Inclusion in the study required the pediatrician to have “reasonable doubts about the need to prescribe an antibiotic.” Clinics with access to rapid streptococcal testing did not enroll patients with pharyngitis.

Patients were randomized in approximately equal groups to receive either immediate prescription of antibiotics, delayed prescription, or no prescription. In the delayed group, caregivers were advised to fill prescriptions if any of following three events occurred:

• No symptom improvement after a certain amount of days, depending on presenting complaint (acute otitis media, 4 days; pharyngitis, 7 days; acute rhinosinusitis, 15 days; acute bronchitis, 20 days).
• Temperature of at least 39° C after 24 hours, or at least 38° C but less than 39° C after 48 hours.
• Patient feeling “much worse.”

Primary outcomes were severity and duration of symptoms over 30 days, while secondary outcomes included antibiotic use over 30 days, additional unscheduled visits to primary care over 30 days, and parental satisfaction and beliefs regarding antibiotic efficacy.

In the final dataset, 148 patients received immediate antibiotic prescriptions, while 146 received delayed prescriptions, and 142 received no prescription. Rate of antibiotic use was highest in the immediate prescription group, at 96%, versus 25.3% in the delayed group and 12% among those who received no prescription upon first presentation (P < .001).

Although the mean duration of severe symptoms was longest in the delayed-prescription group, at 12.4 days, versus 10.9 days in the no-prescription group and 10.1 days in the immediate-prescription group, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .539). Median score for greatest severity of any symptom was also similar across groups. Secondary outcomes echoed this pattern, in which reconsultation rates and caregiver satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of treatment type.

In contrast, patients who received immediate antibiotic prescriptions had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events (8.8%) than those who received a delayed prescription (3.4%) or no prescription (2.8%; P = .037).

“Delayed antibiotic prescription is an efficacious and safe strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated RTIs in children when the doctor has reasonable doubts regarding the indication,” the investigators concluded. “[It] is therefore a useful tool for addressing the public health issue of bacterial resistance. However, no antibiotic prescription remains the recommended strategy when it is clear that antibiotics are not indicated, like in most cases of acute bronchitis.”

“These data are reassuring,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit; however, they went on to suggest that the data “might not substantially move the needle.”

“With rare exceptions, children with acute pharyngitis should first receive a group A streptococcal test,” they wrote. “If results are positive, all patients should get antibiotics; if results are negative, no one gets them. Acute bronchitis (whatever that is in children) is viral. Acute sinusitis with persistent symptoms (the most commonly diagnosed variety) already has a delayed option, and the current study ... was not powered for this outcome. We are left with acute otitis media, which dominated enrollment but already has an evidence-based guideline.”

Still, Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit suggested that the findings should further encourage pediatricians to prescribe antibiotics judiciously, and when elected, to choose the shortest duration and narrowest spectrum possible.

In a joint comment, Rana El Feghaly, MD, MSCI, director of outpatient antibiotic stewardship at Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, and her colleague, Mary Anne Jackson, MD, noted that the findings are “in accordance” with the 2017 Cochrane review.

Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said that these new data provide greater support for conservative use of antibiotics, which is badly needed, considering approximately 50% of outpatient prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate .

Delayed antibiotic prescription is part of a multifaceted approach to the issue, they said, joining “communication skills training, antibiotic justification documentation, audit and feedback reporting with peer comparison, diagnostic stewardship, [and] the use of clinician education on practice-based guidelines.”

“Leveraging delayed antibiotic prescription may be an excellent way to combat antibiotic overuse in the outpatient setting, while avoiding provider and parental fear of the ‘no antibiotic’ approach,” Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said.

Karlyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire, Conn., suggested that clinicians discuss these findings with parents who request antibiotics for “otitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or sinusitis.”

“We can cite this study that antibiotics have no effect on symptom duration or severity for these illnesses,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Of course, our clinical opinion in each case takes precedent.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, conversations with parents also need to cover reasonable expectations, as the study did, with clear time frames for each condition in which children should start to get better.

“I think this is really key in our anticipatory guidance so that patients know what to expect,” she said.

The study was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the European Union, and the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

For pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs), immediately prescribing antibiotics may do more harm than good, based on prospective data from 436 children treated by primary care pediatricians in Spain.

In the largest trial of its kind to date, children who were immediately prescribed antibiotics showed no significant difference in symptom severity or duration from those who received a delayed prescription for antibiotics, or no prescription at all; yet those in the immediate-prescription group had a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, reported lead author Gemma Mas-Dalmau, MD, of the Sant Pau Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, and colleagues.

“Most RTIs are self-limiting, and antibiotics hardly alter the course of the condition, yet antibiotics are frequently prescribed for these conditions,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Antibiotic prescription for RTIs in children is especially considered to be inappropriately high.”

This clinical behavior is driven by several factors, according to Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues, including limited diagnostics in primary care, pressure to meet parental expectations, and concern for possible complications if antibiotics are withheld or delayed.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD and Bonnie F. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that “children in the United States receive more than one antibiotic prescription per year, driven largely by acute RTIs.”

Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit noted that some RTIs are indeed caused by bacteria, and therefore benefit from antibiotics, but it’s “not always easy” to identify these cases.

“Primary care, urgent care, and emergency medicine clinicians have a hard job,” they wrote.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in which a prescription is filled upon persistence or worsening of symptoms, can balance clinical caution and antibiotic stewardship.

“An example of this approach is acute otitis media, in which delayed prescribing has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic exposure,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit.

In a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of both adults and children with RTIs, antibiotic prescriptions, whether immediate, delayed, or not given at all, had no significant effect on most symptoms or complications. Although several randomized trials have evaluated delayed antibiotic prescriptions in children, Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues described the current body of evidence as “scant.”

The present study built upon this knowledge base by prospectively following 436 children treated at 39 primary care centers in Spain from 2012 to 2016. Patients were between 2 and 14 years of age and presented for rhinosinusitis, pharyngitis, acute otitis media, or acute bronchitis. Inclusion in the study required the pediatrician to have “reasonable doubts about the need to prescribe an antibiotic.” Clinics with access to rapid streptococcal testing did not enroll patients with pharyngitis.

Patients were randomized in approximately equal groups to receive either immediate prescription of antibiotics, delayed prescription, or no prescription. In the delayed group, caregivers were advised to fill prescriptions if any of following three events occurred:

• No symptom improvement after a certain amount of days, depending on presenting complaint (acute otitis media, 4 days; pharyngitis, 7 days; acute rhinosinusitis, 15 days; acute bronchitis, 20 days).
• Temperature of at least 39° C after 24 hours, or at least 38° C but less than 39° C after 48 hours.
• Patient feeling “much worse.”

Primary outcomes were severity and duration of symptoms over 30 days, while secondary outcomes included antibiotic use over 30 days, additional unscheduled visits to primary care over 30 days, and parental satisfaction and beliefs regarding antibiotic efficacy.

In the final dataset, 148 patients received immediate antibiotic prescriptions, while 146 received delayed prescriptions, and 142 received no prescription. Rate of antibiotic use was highest in the immediate prescription group, at 96%, versus 25.3% in the delayed group and 12% among those who received no prescription upon first presentation (P < .001).

Although the mean duration of severe symptoms was longest in the delayed-prescription group, at 12.4 days, versus 10.9 days in the no-prescription group and 10.1 days in the immediate-prescription group, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .539). Median score for greatest severity of any symptom was also similar across groups. Secondary outcomes echoed this pattern, in which reconsultation rates and caregiver satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of treatment type.

In contrast, patients who received immediate antibiotic prescriptions had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events (8.8%) than those who received a delayed prescription (3.4%) or no prescription (2.8%; P = .037).

“Delayed antibiotic prescription is an efficacious and safe strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated RTIs in children when the doctor has reasonable doubts regarding the indication,” the investigators concluded. “[It] is therefore a useful tool for addressing the public health issue of bacterial resistance. However, no antibiotic prescription remains the recommended strategy when it is clear that antibiotics are not indicated, like in most cases of acute bronchitis.”

“These data are reassuring,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit; however, they went on to suggest that the data “might not substantially move the needle.”

“With rare exceptions, children with acute pharyngitis should first receive a group A streptococcal test,” they wrote. “If results are positive, all patients should get antibiotics; if results are negative, no one gets them. Acute bronchitis (whatever that is in children) is viral. Acute sinusitis with persistent symptoms (the most commonly diagnosed variety) already has a delayed option, and the current study ... was not powered for this outcome. We are left with acute otitis media, which dominated enrollment but already has an evidence-based guideline.”

Still, Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit suggested that the findings should further encourage pediatricians to prescribe antibiotics judiciously, and when elected, to choose the shortest duration and narrowest spectrum possible.

In a joint comment, Rana El Feghaly, MD, MSCI, director of outpatient antibiotic stewardship at Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, and her colleague, Mary Anne Jackson, MD, noted that the findings are “in accordance” with the 2017 Cochrane review.

Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said that these new data provide greater support for conservative use of antibiotics, which is badly needed, considering approximately 50% of outpatient prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate .

Delayed antibiotic prescription is part of a multifaceted approach to the issue, they said, joining “communication skills training, antibiotic justification documentation, audit and feedback reporting with peer comparison, diagnostic stewardship, [and] the use of clinician education on practice-based guidelines.”

“Leveraging delayed antibiotic prescription may be an excellent way to combat antibiotic overuse in the outpatient setting, while avoiding provider and parental fear of the ‘no antibiotic’ approach,” Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said.

Karlyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire, Conn., suggested that clinicians discuss these findings with parents who request antibiotics for “otitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or sinusitis.”

“We can cite this study that antibiotics have no effect on symptom duration or severity for these illnesses,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Of course, our clinical opinion in each case takes precedent.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, conversations with parents also need to cover reasonable expectations, as the study did, with clear time frames for each condition in which children should start to get better.

“I think this is really key in our anticipatory guidance so that patients know what to expect,” she said.

The study was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the European Union, and the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

For pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs), immediately prescribing antibiotics may do more harm than good, based on prospective data from 436 children treated by primary care pediatricians in Spain.

In the largest trial of its kind to date, children who were immediately prescribed antibiotics showed no significant difference in symptom severity or duration from those who received a delayed prescription for antibiotics, or no prescription at all; yet those in the immediate-prescription group had a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, reported lead author Gemma Mas-Dalmau, MD, of the Sant Pau Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, and colleagues.

“Most RTIs are self-limiting, and antibiotics hardly alter the course of the condition, yet antibiotics are frequently prescribed for these conditions,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Antibiotic prescription for RTIs in children is especially considered to be inappropriately high.”

This clinical behavior is driven by several factors, according to Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues, including limited diagnostics in primary care, pressure to meet parental expectations, and concern for possible complications if antibiotics are withheld or delayed.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD and Bonnie F. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that “children in the United States receive more than one antibiotic prescription per year, driven largely by acute RTIs.”

Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit noted that some RTIs are indeed caused by bacteria, and therefore benefit from antibiotics, but it’s “not always easy” to identify these cases.

“Primary care, urgent care, and emergency medicine clinicians have a hard job,” they wrote.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in which a prescription is filled upon persistence or worsening of symptoms, can balance clinical caution and antibiotic stewardship.

“An example of this approach is acute otitis media, in which delayed prescribing has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic exposure,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit.

In a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of both adults and children with RTIs, antibiotic prescriptions, whether immediate, delayed, or not given at all, had no significant effect on most symptoms or complications. Although several randomized trials have evaluated delayed antibiotic prescriptions in children, Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues described the current body of evidence as “scant.”

The present study built upon this knowledge base by prospectively following 436 children treated at 39 primary care centers in Spain from 2012 to 2016. Patients were between 2 and 14 years of age and presented for rhinosinusitis, pharyngitis, acute otitis media, or acute bronchitis. Inclusion in the study required the pediatrician to have “reasonable doubts about the need to prescribe an antibiotic.” Clinics with access to rapid streptococcal testing did not enroll patients with pharyngitis.

Patients were randomized in approximately equal groups to receive either immediate prescription of antibiotics, delayed prescription, or no prescription. In the delayed group, caregivers were advised to fill prescriptions if any of following three events occurred:

• No symptom improvement after a certain amount of days, depending on presenting complaint (acute otitis media, 4 days; pharyngitis, 7 days; acute rhinosinusitis, 15 days; acute bronchitis, 20 days).
• Temperature of at least 39° C after 24 hours, or at least 38° C but less than 39° C after 48 hours.
• Patient feeling “much worse.”

Primary outcomes were severity and duration of symptoms over 30 days, while secondary outcomes included antibiotic use over 30 days, additional unscheduled visits to primary care over 30 days, and parental satisfaction and beliefs regarding antibiotic efficacy.

In the final dataset, 148 patients received immediate antibiotic prescriptions, while 146 received delayed prescriptions, and 142 received no prescription. Rate of antibiotic use was highest in the immediate prescription group, at 96%, versus 25.3% in the delayed group and 12% among those who received no prescription upon first presentation (P < .001).

Although the mean duration of severe symptoms was longest in the delayed-prescription group, at 12.4 days, versus 10.9 days in the no-prescription group and 10.1 days in the immediate-prescription group, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .539). Median score for greatest severity of any symptom was also similar across groups. Secondary outcomes echoed this pattern, in which reconsultation rates and caregiver satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of treatment type.

In contrast, patients who received immediate antibiotic prescriptions had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events (8.8%) than those who received a delayed prescription (3.4%) or no prescription (2.8%; P = .037).

“Delayed antibiotic prescription is an efficacious and safe strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated RTIs in children when the doctor has reasonable doubts regarding the indication,” the investigators concluded. “[It] is therefore a useful tool for addressing the public health issue of bacterial resistance. However, no antibiotic prescription remains the recommended strategy when it is clear that antibiotics are not indicated, like in most cases of acute bronchitis.”

“These data are reassuring,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit; however, they went on to suggest that the data “might not substantially move the needle.”

“With rare exceptions, children with acute pharyngitis should first receive a group A streptococcal test,” they wrote. “If results are positive, all patients should get antibiotics; if results are negative, no one gets them. Acute bronchitis (whatever that is in children) is viral. Acute sinusitis with persistent symptoms (the most commonly diagnosed variety) already has a delayed option, and the current study ... was not powered for this outcome. We are left with acute otitis media, which dominated enrollment but already has an evidence-based guideline.”

Still, Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit suggested that the findings should further encourage pediatricians to prescribe antibiotics judiciously, and when elected, to choose the shortest duration and narrowest spectrum possible.

In a joint comment, Rana El Feghaly, MD, MSCI, director of outpatient antibiotic stewardship at Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, and her colleague, Mary Anne Jackson, MD, noted that the findings are “in accordance” with the 2017 Cochrane review.

Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said that these new data provide greater support for conservative use of antibiotics, which is badly needed, considering approximately 50% of outpatient prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate .

Delayed antibiotic prescription is part of a multifaceted approach to the issue, they said, joining “communication skills training, antibiotic justification documentation, audit and feedback reporting with peer comparison, diagnostic stewardship, [and] the use of clinician education on practice-based guidelines.”

“Leveraging delayed antibiotic prescription may be an excellent way to combat antibiotic overuse in the outpatient setting, while avoiding provider and parental fear of the ‘no antibiotic’ approach,” Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said.

Karlyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire, Conn., suggested that clinicians discuss these findings with parents who request antibiotics for “otitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or sinusitis.”

“We can cite this study that antibiotics have no effect on symptom duration or severity for these illnesses,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Of course, our clinical opinion in each case takes precedent.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, conversations with parents also need to cover reasonable expectations, as the study did, with clear time frames for each condition in which children should start to get better.

“I think this is really key in our anticipatory guidance so that patients know what to expect,” she said.

The study was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the European Union, and the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and readmissions are on the rise in the United States, reversing a multiyear downward trend, a new national cohort study shows.

Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.

Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.

Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).

“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.

“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.

Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”

As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.

In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.

The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.

“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.

The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.

A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.

The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.

“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.

One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and readmissions are on the rise in the United States, reversing a multiyear downward trend, a new national cohort study shows.

Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.

Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.

Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).

“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.

“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.

Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”

As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.

In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.

The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.

“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.

The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.

A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.

The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.

“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.

One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and readmissions are on the rise in the United States, reversing a multiyear downward trend, a new national cohort study shows.

Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.

Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.

Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).

“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.

“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.

Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”

As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.

In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.

The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.

“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.

The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.

A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.

The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.

“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.

One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the fully human monoclonal antibody evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) for use on top of other cholesterol-modifying medication in patients aged 12 years and older with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), the agency and Regeneron have announced.

Evinacumab had received orphan drug designation and underwent priority regulatory review based primarily on the phase 3 ELIPSE trial, presented at a meeting in March 2020 and published in August 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004215).

In the trial with 65 patients with HoFH on guideline-based lipid-modifying therapy, those who also received evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks showed a nearly 50% drop in LDL cholesterol levels after 24 weeks, compared with patients given a placebo. Only 2% of patients in both groups discontinued therapy because of adverse reactions.

The drug blocks angiopoietin-like 3, itself an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase. It therefore lowers LDL cholesterol levels by mechanisms that don’t directly involve the LDL receptor.

Regeneron estimates that about 1300 people in the United States have the homozygous genetic disorder, which can lead to LDL cholesterol levels of a 1,000 mg/dL or higher, advanced premature atherosclerosis, and extreme risk for cardiovascular events.

The drug’s average wholesale acquisition cost per patient in the United States is expected to be about $450,000 per year, the company said, adding that it has a financial support program to help qualified patients with out-of-pocket costs.

Regeneron’s announcement included a comment from dyslipidemia-therapy expert Daniel J. Rader, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who called evinacumab “a potentially transformational new treatment for people with HoFH.”

The drug is currently under regulatory review for the same indication in Europe, the company said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the fully human monoclonal antibody evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) for use on top of other cholesterol-modifying medication in patients aged 12 years and older with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), the agency and Regeneron have announced.

Evinacumab had received orphan drug designation and underwent priority regulatory review based primarily on the phase 3 ELIPSE trial, presented at a meeting in March 2020 and published in August 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004215).

In the trial with 65 patients with HoFH on guideline-based lipid-modifying therapy, those who also received evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks showed a nearly 50% drop in LDL cholesterol levels after 24 weeks, compared with patients given a placebo. Only 2% of patients in both groups discontinued therapy because of adverse reactions.

The drug blocks angiopoietin-like 3, itself an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase. It therefore lowers LDL cholesterol levels by mechanisms that don’t directly involve the LDL receptor.

Regeneron estimates that about 1300 people in the United States have the homozygous genetic disorder, which can lead to LDL cholesterol levels of a 1,000 mg/dL or higher, advanced premature atherosclerosis, and extreme risk for cardiovascular events.

The drug’s average wholesale acquisition cost per patient in the United States is expected to be about $450,000 per year, the company said, adding that it has a financial support program to help qualified patients with out-of-pocket costs.

Regeneron’s announcement included a comment from dyslipidemia-therapy expert Daniel J. Rader, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who called evinacumab “a potentially transformational new treatment for people with HoFH.”

The drug is currently under regulatory review for the same indication in Europe, the company said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the fully human monoclonal antibody evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) for use on top of other cholesterol-modifying medication in patients aged 12 years and older with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), the agency and Regeneron have announced.

Evinacumab had received orphan drug designation and underwent priority regulatory review based primarily on the phase 3 ELIPSE trial, presented at a meeting in March 2020 and published in August 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004215).

In the trial with 65 patients with HoFH on guideline-based lipid-modifying therapy, those who also received evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks showed a nearly 50% drop in LDL cholesterol levels after 24 weeks, compared with patients given a placebo. Only 2% of patients in both groups discontinued therapy because of adverse reactions.

The drug blocks angiopoietin-like 3, itself an inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase. It therefore lowers LDL cholesterol levels by mechanisms that don’t directly involve the LDL receptor.

Regeneron estimates that about 1300 people in the United States have the homozygous genetic disorder, which can lead to LDL cholesterol levels of a 1,000 mg/dL or higher, advanced premature atherosclerosis, and extreme risk for cardiovascular events.

The drug’s average wholesale acquisition cost per patient in the United States is expected to be about $450,000 per year, the company said, adding that it has a financial support program to help qualified patients with out-of-pocket costs.

Regeneron’s announcement included a comment from dyslipidemia-therapy expert Daniel J. Rader, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who called evinacumab “a potentially transformational new treatment for people with HoFH.”

The drug is currently under regulatory review for the same indication in Europe, the company said.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
 

Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment

Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.

There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.

Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.

In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.

“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
 

Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters

In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.

In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.

In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).

There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
 

‘Yentl syndrome’ persists

“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.

Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.

This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.

The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.

“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
 

Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment

Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.

There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.

Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.

In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.

“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
 

Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters

In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.

In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.

In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).

There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
 

‘Yentl syndrome’ persists

“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.

Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.

This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.

The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.

“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
 

Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment

Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.

There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.

Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.

In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.

“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
 

Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters

In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.

In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.

In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).

There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
 

‘Yentl syndrome’ persists

“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.

Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.

This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.

The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.

“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Sixteen dysregulated genes strongly characterize hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), Andre da Costa, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented highlights of a multicenter translational study, which utilized whole transcriptome analysis of lesional and nonlesional skin from patients with HS and normal controls along with quantitative real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. The purpose was to further define the molecular taxonomy of this inflammatory disease. And while this objective was achieved, the results also underscored a truism regarding the painful and scarring disease: “HS is characterized by an ever-growing complexity, which translates into multiple potential mechanistic drivers,” observed Dr. da Costa, head of immunology precision medicine at AstraZeneca in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Indeed, the study identified a panel of immune-related drivers in HS that influence innate immunity and cell differentiation in follicular and epidermal keratinocytes. The research by Dr. da Costa and coinvestigators identified a broad array of promising novel therapeutic targets in HS.

“Our findings provide evidence of an inflammatory process coupled with impaired barrier function, altered epidermal cell differentiation, and possibly abnormal microbiome activity which can be seen at the follicular and epidermal keratinocytes and also to a minor degree at the level of the skin glands,” Dr. da Costa said.

There is a huge unmet need for new therapies for HS, since at present adalimumab (Humira) is the only approved medication for this debilitating inflammatory disease. Some good news that emerged from this translational study is that some of the novel molecular mediators implicated in HS are targeted by multiple Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies that have other indications. From a drug development standpoint, repurposing a commercially available drug for a novel indication is a much more efficient and less costly endeavor than is necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of an unproven new agent.

The translational work demonstrated that the proteins calgranulin-A and -B and serpin-B4 were strongly expressed in the hair root sheaths of patients with HS. Connexin-32 and koebnerisin were present in stratum granulosum, matrix metallopeptidase-9 was strongly expressed in resident monocytes, small prolin-rich protein 3 in apocrine sweat glands and ducts as well as in sebaceous glands and ducts, and transcobalamin-1 was prominent in stratum spinosum.

Of the 19 key molecular mediators of HS identified in the study, FDA-approved agents are already available that target 12 of them. For example, apremilast (Otezla) targets interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Gentamicin targets growth arrest-specific 6 (GAS6) and interleukin-17 (IL-17). Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz) target IL-17A, and brodalumab (Siliq) more broadly targets IL-17A as well as all the other IL-17 receptors. Thalidomide targets hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and TNF-alpha. Spironolactone targets androgen receptor (AR) and TNF-alpha. Colchicine targets tubulin. Anakinra (Kineret) homes in on the IL-1 receptor. And prednisone targets NFxB.

Other key molecular mediators of HS, which are targeted by commercially available drugs, include epidermal growth factor (EGF), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (MCSF), epiregulin (EREG), fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1), FGF2, insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2), and IL-6, according to Dr. da Costa.

In addition, clinical trials are underway in HS involving totally investigational agents, including several Janus kinase inhibitors and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors.

The work described by Dr. da Costa had multiple funding sources, including the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, the University of Copenhagen, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, AstraZeneca, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr. da Costa is an employee of AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.

[email protected]

Sixteen dysregulated genes strongly characterize hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), Andre da Costa, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented highlights of a multicenter translational study, which utilized whole transcriptome analysis of lesional and nonlesional skin from patients with HS and normal controls along with quantitative real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. The purpose was to further define the molecular taxonomy of this inflammatory disease. And while this objective was achieved, the results also underscored a truism regarding the painful and scarring disease: “HS is characterized by an ever-growing complexity, which translates into multiple potential mechanistic drivers,” observed Dr. da Costa, head of immunology precision medicine at AstraZeneca in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Indeed, the study identified a panel of immune-related drivers in HS that influence innate immunity and cell differentiation in follicular and epidermal keratinocytes. The research by Dr. da Costa and coinvestigators identified a broad array of promising novel therapeutic targets in HS.

“Our findings provide evidence of an inflammatory process coupled with impaired barrier function, altered epidermal cell differentiation, and possibly abnormal microbiome activity which can be seen at the follicular and epidermal keratinocytes and also to a minor degree at the level of the skin glands,” Dr. da Costa said.

There is a huge unmet need for new therapies for HS, since at present adalimumab (Humira) is the only approved medication for this debilitating inflammatory disease. Some good news that emerged from this translational study is that some of the novel molecular mediators implicated in HS are targeted by multiple Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies that have other indications. From a drug development standpoint, repurposing a commercially available drug for a novel indication is a much more efficient and less costly endeavor than is necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of an unproven new agent.

The translational work demonstrated that the proteins calgranulin-A and -B and serpin-B4 were strongly expressed in the hair root sheaths of patients with HS. Connexin-32 and koebnerisin were present in stratum granulosum, matrix metallopeptidase-9 was strongly expressed in resident monocytes, small prolin-rich protein 3 in apocrine sweat glands and ducts as well as in sebaceous glands and ducts, and transcobalamin-1 was prominent in stratum spinosum.

Of the 19 key molecular mediators of HS identified in the study, FDA-approved agents are already available that target 12 of them. For example, apremilast (Otezla) targets interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Gentamicin targets growth arrest-specific 6 (GAS6) and interleukin-17 (IL-17). Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz) target IL-17A, and brodalumab (Siliq) more broadly targets IL-17A as well as all the other IL-17 receptors. Thalidomide targets hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and TNF-alpha. Spironolactone targets androgen receptor (AR) and TNF-alpha. Colchicine targets tubulin. Anakinra (Kineret) homes in on the IL-1 receptor. And prednisone targets NFxB.

Other key molecular mediators of HS, which are targeted by commercially available drugs, include epidermal growth factor (EGF), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (MCSF), epiregulin (EREG), fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1), FGF2, insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2), and IL-6, according to Dr. da Costa.

In addition, clinical trials are underway in HS involving totally investigational agents, including several Janus kinase inhibitors and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors.

The work described by Dr. da Costa had multiple funding sources, including the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, the University of Copenhagen, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, AstraZeneca, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr. da Costa is an employee of AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.

[email protected]

Sixteen dysregulated genes strongly characterize hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), Andre da Costa, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented highlights of a multicenter translational study, which utilized whole transcriptome analysis of lesional and nonlesional skin from patients with HS and normal controls along with quantitative real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. The purpose was to further define the molecular taxonomy of this inflammatory disease. And while this objective was achieved, the results also underscored a truism regarding the painful and scarring disease: “HS is characterized by an ever-growing complexity, which translates into multiple potential mechanistic drivers,” observed Dr. da Costa, head of immunology precision medicine at AstraZeneca in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Indeed, the study identified a panel of immune-related drivers in HS that influence innate immunity and cell differentiation in follicular and epidermal keratinocytes. The research by Dr. da Costa and coinvestigators identified a broad array of promising novel therapeutic targets in HS.

“Our findings provide evidence of an inflammatory process coupled with impaired barrier function, altered epidermal cell differentiation, and possibly abnormal microbiome activity which can be seen at the follicular and epidermal keratinocytes and also to a minor degree at the level of the skin glands,” Dr. da Costa said.

There is a huge unmet need for new therapies for HS, since at present adalimumab (Humira) is the only approved medication for this debilitating inflammatory disease. Some good news that emerged from this translational study is that some of the novel molecular mediators implicated in HS are targeted by multiple Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies that have other indications. From a drug development standpoint, repurposing a commercially available drug for a novel indication is a much more efficient and less costly endeavor than is necessary to establish the safety and efficacy of an unproven new agent.

The translational work demonstrated that the proteins calgranulin-A and -B and serpin-B4 were strongly expressed in the hair root sheaths of patients with HS. Connexin-32 and koebnerisin were present in stratum granulosum, matrix metallopeptidase-9 was strongly expressed in resident monocytes, small prolin-rich protein 3 in apocrine sweat glands and ducts as well as in sebaceous glands and ducts, and transcobalamin-1 was prominent in stratum spinosum.

Of the 19 key molecular mediators of HS identified in the study, FDA-approved agents are already available that target 12 of them. For example, apremilast (Otezla) targets interferon-gamma and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Gentamicin targets growth arrest-specific 6 (GAS6) and interleukin-17 (IL-17). Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz) target IL-17A, and brodalumab (Siliq) more broadly targets IL-17A as well as all the other IL-17 receptors. Thalidomide targets hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and TNF-alpha. Spironolactone targets androgen receptor (AR) and TNF-alpha. Colchicine targets tubulin. Anakinra (Kineret) homes in on the IL-1 receptor. And prednisone targets NFxB.

Other key molecular mediators of HS, which are targeted by commercially available drugs, include epidermal growth factor (EGF), macrophage colony-stimulating factor (MCSF), epiregulin (EREG), fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1), FGF2, insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2), and IL-6, according to Dr. da Costa.

In addition, clinical trials are underway in HS involving totally investigational agents, including several Janus kinase inhibitors and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors.

The work described by Dr. da Costa had multiple funding sources, including the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, the University of Copenhagen, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, AstraZeneca, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr. da Costa is an employee of AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children dropped for the third consecutive week, even as children continue to make up a larger share of all cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled almost 118,000 for the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4, continuing the decline that began right after the United States topped 200,000 cases for the only time Jan. 8-14, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

For the latest week, however, children represented 16.0% of all new COVID-19 cases, continuing a 5-week increase that began in early December 2020, after the proportion had dropped to 12.6%, based on data collected from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. During the week of Sept. 11-17, children made up 16.9% of all cases, the highest level seen during the pandemic.

The 2.93 million cases that have been reported in children make up 12.9% of all cases since the pandemic began, and the overall rate of pediatric coronavirus infection is 3,899 cases per 100,000 children in the population. Taking a step down from the national level, 30 states are above that rate and 18 are below it, along with D.C., New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam (New York and Texas are excluded), the AAP and CHA reported.

There were 12 new COVID-19–related child deaths in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, bringing the total to 227. Nationally, 0.06% of all deaths have occurred in children, with rates ranging from 0.00% (11 states) to 0.26% (Nebraska) in the 45 jurisdictions, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Child hospitalizations rose to 1.9% of all hospitalizations after holding at 1.8% since mid-November in 25 reporting jurisdictions (24 states and New York City), but the hospitalization rate among children with COVID held at 0.8%, where it has been for the last 4 weeks. Hospitalization rates as high as 3.8% were recorded early in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA noted.

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children dropped for the third consecutive week, even as children continue to make up a larger share of all cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled almost 118,000 for the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4, continuing the decline that began right after the United States topped 200,000 cases for the only time Jan. 8-14, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

For the latest week, however, children represented 16.0% of all new COVID-19 cases, continuing a 5-week increase that began in early December 2020, after the proportion had dropped to 12.6%, based on data collected from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. During the week of Sept. 11-17, children made up 16.9% of all cases, the highest level seen during the pandemic.

The 2.93 million cases that have been reported in children make up 12.9% of all cases since the pandemic began, and the overall rate of pediatric coronavirus infection is 3,899 cases per 100,000 children in the population. Taking a step down from the national level, 30 states are above that rate and 18 are below it, along with D.C., New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam (New York and Texas are excluded), the AAP and CHA reported.

There were 12 new COVID-19–related child deaths in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, bringing the total to 227. Nationally, 0.06% of all deaths have occurred in children, with rates ranging from 0.00% (11 states) to 0.26% (Nebraska) in the 45 jurisdictions, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Child hospitalizations rose to 1.9% of all hospitalizations after holding at 1.8% since mid-November in 25 reporting jurisdictions (24 states and New York City), but the hospitalization rate among children with COVID held at 0.8%, where it has been for the last 4 weeks. Hospitalization rates as high as 3.8% were recorded early in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA noted.

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children dropped for the third consecutive week, even as children continue to make up a larger share of all cases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled almost 118,000 for the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4, continuing the decline that began right after the United States topped 200,000 cases for the only time Jan. 8-14, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

For the latest week, however, children represented 16.0% of all new COVID-19 cases, continuing a 5-week increase that began in early December 2020, after the proportion had dropped to 12.6%, based on data collected from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. During the week of Sept. 11-17, children made up 16.9% of all cases, the highest level seen during the pandemic.

The 2.93 million cases that have been reported in children make up 12.9% of all cases since the pandemic began, and the overall rate of pediatric coronavirus infection is 3,899 cases per 100,000 children in the population. Taking a step down from the national level, 30 states are above that rate and 18 are below it, along with D.C., New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam (New York and Texas are excluded), the AAP and CHA reported.

There were 12 new COVID-19–related child deaths in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, bringing the total to 227. Nationally, 0.06% of all deaths have occurred in children, with rates ranging from 0.00% (11 states) to 0.26% (Nebraska) in the 45 jurisdictions, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Child hospitalizations rose to 1.9% of all hospitalizations after holding at 1.8% since mid-November in 25 reporting jurisdictions (24 states and New York City), but the hospitalization rate among children with COVID held at 0.8%, where it has been for the last 4 weeks. Hospitalization rates as high as 3.8% were recorded early in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA noted.

[email protected]

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.

“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”

The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said

The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
 

Mathematics, not hypotheses

To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.

The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.

Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
 

Heart failure and risk reduced

In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.

When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).

While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”

She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
 

Machine learning mines observational trials

Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”

He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.

“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”

He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”

The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.

“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”

The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said

The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
 

Mathematics, not hypotheses

To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.

The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.

Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
 

Heart failure and risk reduced

In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.

When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).

While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”

She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
 

Machine learning mines observational trials

Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”

He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.

“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”

He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”

The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.

“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”

The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said

The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
 

Mathematics, not hypotheses

To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.

The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.

Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
 

Heart failure and risk reduced

In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.

When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).

While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”

She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
 

Machine learning mines observational trials

Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”

He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.

“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”

He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”

The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.