User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
New eGFR equation ‘less biased’ by age, kidney function; some disagree
The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.
The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.
“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.
In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”
“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.
Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
What’s new is Q
Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.
Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.
The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.
“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.
Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.
“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.
However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI
In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.
“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.
The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.
In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.
“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”
Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year
Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.
However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.
Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.
“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”
The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.
The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.
“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.
In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”
“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.
Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
What’s new is Q
Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.
Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.
The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.
“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.
Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.
“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.
However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI
In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.
“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.
The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.
In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.
“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”
Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year
Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.
However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.
Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.
“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”
The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.
The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.
“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.
In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”
“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.
Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
What’s new is Q
Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.
Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.
The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.
“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.
Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.
“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.
However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI
In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.
“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.
The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.
In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.
“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”
Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year
Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.
However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.
Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.
“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”
The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Great Barrington coauthor backs off strict reliance on herd immunity
A coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration says that he and colleagues have never argued against using mitigation strategies to keep COVID-19 from spreading, and that critics have mischaracterized the document as a “let it rip” strategy.
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a professor and public health policy expert in infectious diseases at Stanford University in California, spoke on a JAMA Livestream debate on November 6. Marc Lipsitch, MD, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, represented the 6900 signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, a rebuttal to the Great Barrington document.
The Great Barrington approach of “Focused Protection” advocates isolation and protection of people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 while avoiding what they characterize as lockdowns. “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the document reads.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and its HIV Medicine Association denounced the declaration, as reported by Medscape Medical News, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the proposal “unethical.” But the idea has gained some traction at the White House, where Coronavirus Task Force Member and Stanford professor Scott Atlas, MD, has been advising President Donald J. Trump.
On the JAMA debate, Bhattacharya said, “I think all of the mitigation measures are really important,” listing social distancing, hand washing, and masks when distancing is not possible as chief among those strategies for the less vulnerable. “I don’t want to create infections intentionally, but I want us to allow people to go back to their lives as best they can, understanding of the risks they are taking when they do it,” he said, claiming that 99.95% of the population will survive infection.
“The harmful lockdowns are worse for many, many people,” Bhattacharya said.
“I think Jay is moving towards a middle ground which is not really what the Great Barrington Declaration seems to promote,” countered Lipsitch. The declaration does not say use masks or social distance, he said. “It just says we need to go back to a normal life.”
Bhattacharya’s statements to JAMA mean that “maybe we are approaching some common ground,” Lipsitch said.
Definition of a lockdown
Both men were asked to give their definition of a “lockdown.” To Lipsitch, it means people are not allowed out except for essential services and that most businesses are closed, with exceptions for those deemed essential.
Bhattacharya, however, said he views that as a quarantine. Lockdowns “are what we’re currently doing,” he said. Schools, churches, businesses, and arts and culture organizations are shuttered, and “almost every aspect of society is restricted in some way,” Bhattacharya said.
He blamed these lockdowns for most of the excess deaths over and above the COVID-19 deaths and said they had failed to control the pandemic.
Lipsitch said that “it feels to me that Jay is describing as lockdown everything that causes harm, even when it’s not locked down.” He noted that the country was truly closed down for 2 months or so in the spring.
“All of these harms I agree are real,” said Lipsitch. “But they are because the normal life of our society is being interfered with by viral transmission and by people’s inability to live their normal lives.”
Closures and lockdowns are essential to delaying cases and deaths, said Lipsitch. “A case today is worse than a case tomorrow and a lot worse than a case 6 months from now,” he said, noting that a vaccine or improved therapeutics could evolve.
“Delay is not nothing,” Lipsitch added. “It’s actually the goal as I see it, and as the John Snow memo says, we want to keep the virus under control in such a way as that the vulnerable people are not at risk.”
He predicted that cases will continue to grow exponentially because the nation is “not even close to herd immunity.” And, if intensive care units fill up, “there will be a responsive lockdown,” he said, adding that he did not endorse that as a general matter or favor it as a default position.
Bhattacharya claimed that Sweden has tallied only 1800 excess deaths since the pandemic began. “That’s lockdown harm avoided,” he said, advocating a similar strategy for the United States. But, infections have been on the rise in Sweden, and the nation has a higher COVID-19 death rate — with 6000 deaths — than other Nordic countries.
“If we keep this policy of lockdown we will have the same kind of outcomes we’ve already had — high excess deaths and sort of indifferent control of COVID,” Bhattacharya said.
“We’re still going to have misery and death going forward until we reach a point where there’s sufficient immunity either though a vaccine or through natural infection,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration says that he and colleagues have never argued against using mitigation strategies to keep COVID-19 from spreading, and that critics have mischaracterized the document as a “let it rip” strategy.
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a professor and public health policy expert in infectious diseases at Stanford University in California, spoke on a JAMA Livestream debate on November 6. Marc Lipsitch, MD, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, represented the 6900 signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, a rebuttal to the Great Barrington document.
The Great Barrington approach of “Focused Protection” advocates isolation and protection of people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 while avoiding what they characterize as lockdowns. “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the document reads.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and its HIV Medicine Association denounced the declaration, as reported by Medscape Medical News, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the proposal “unethical.” But the idea has gained some traction at the White House, where Coronavirus Task Force Member and Stanford professor Scott Atlas, MD, has been advising President Donald J. Trump.
On the JAMA debate, Bhattacharya said, “I think all of the mitigation measures are really important,” listing social distancing, hand washing, and masks when distancing is not possible as chief among those strategies for the less vulnerable. “I don’t want to create infections intentionally, but I want us to allow people to go back to their lives as best they can, understanding of the risks they are taking when they do it,” he said, claiming that 99.95% of the population will survive infection.
“The harmful lockdowns are worse for many, many people,” Bhattacharya said.
“I think Jay is moving towards a middle ground which is not really what the Great Barrington Declaration seems to promote,” countered Lipsitch. The declaration does not say use masks or social distance, he said. “It just says we need to go back to a normal life.”
Bhattacharya’s statements to JAMA mean that “maybe we are approaching some common ground,” Lipsitch said.
Definition of a lockdown
Both men were asked to give their definition of a “lockdown.” To Lipsitch, it means people are not allowed out except for essential services and that most businesses are closed, with exceptions for those deemed essential.
Bhattacharya, however, said he views that as a quarantine. Lockdowns “are what we’re currently doing,” he said. Schools, churches, businesses, and arts and culture organizations are shuttered, and “almost every aspect of society is restricted in some way,” Bhattacharya said.
He blamed these lockdowns for most of the excess deaths over and above the COVID-19 deaths and said they had failed to control the pandemic.
Lipsitch said that “it feels to me that Jay is describing as lockdown everything that causes harm, even when it’s not locked down.” He noted that the country was truly closed down for 2 months or so in the spring.
“All of these harms I agree are real,” said Lipsitch. “But they are because the normal life of our society is being interfered with by viral transmission and by people’s inability to live their normal lives.”
Closures and lockdowns are essential to delaying cases and deaths, said Lipsitch. “A case today is worse than a case tomorrow and a lot worse than a case 6 months from now,” he said, noting that a vaccine or improved therapeutics could evolve.
“Delay is not nothing,” Lipsitch added. “It’s actually the goal as I see it, and as the John Snow memo says, we want to keep the virus under control in such a way as that the vulnerable people are not at risk.”
He predicted that cases will continue to grow exponentially because the nation is “not even close to herd immunity.” And, if intensive care units fill up, “there will be a responsive lockdown,” he said, adding that he did not endorse that as a general matter or favor it as a default position.
Bhattacharya claimed that Sweden has tallied only 1800 excess deaths since the pandemic began. “That’s lockdown harm avoided,” he said, advocating a similar strategy for the United States. But, infections have been on the rise in Sweden, and the nation has a higher COVID-19 death rate — with 6000 deaths — than other Nordic countries.
“If we keep this policy of lockdown we will have the same kind of outcomes we’ve already had — high excess deaths and sort of indifferent control of COVID,” Bhattacharya said.
“We’re still going to have misery and death going forward until we reach a point where there’s sufficient immunity either though a vaccine or through natural infection,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration says that he and colleagues have never argued against using mitigation strategies to keep COVID-19 from spreading, and that critics have mischaracterized the document as a “let it rip” strategy.
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a professor and public health policy expert in infectious diseases at Stanford University in California, spoke on a JAMA Livestream debate on November 6. Marc Lipsitch, MD, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, represented the 6900 signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, a rebuttal to the Great Barrington document.
The Great Barrington approach of “Focused Protection” advocates isolation and protection of people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 while avoiding what they characterize as lockdowns. “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the document reads.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and its HIV Medicine Association denounced the declaration, as reported by Medscape Medical News, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the proposal “unethical.” But the idea has gained some traction at the White House, where Coronavirus Task Force Member and Stanford professor Scott Atlas, MD, has been advising President Donald J. Trump.
On the JAMA debate, Bhattacharya said, “I think all of the mitigation measures are really important,” listing social distancing, hand washing, and masks when distancing is not possible as chief among those strategies for the less vulnerable. “I don’t want to create infections intentionally, but I want us to allow people to go back to their lives as best they can, understanding of the risks they are taking when they do it,” he said, claiming that 99.95% of the population will survive infection.
“The harmful lockdowns are worse for many, many people,” Bhattacharya said.
“I think Jay is moving towards a middle ground which is not really what the Great Barrington Declaration seems to promote,” countered Lipsitch. The declaration does not say use masks or social distance, he said. “It just says we need to go back to a normal life.”
Bhattacharya’s statements to JAMA mean that “maybe we are approaching some common ground,” Lipsitch said.
Definition of a lockdown
Both men were asked to give their definition of a “lockdown.” To Lipsitch, it means people are not allowed out except for essential services and that most businesses are closed, with exceptions for those deemed essential.
Bhattacharya, however, said he views that as a quarantine. Lockdowns “are what we’re currently doing,” he said. Schools, churches, businesses, and arts and culture organizations are shuttered, and “almost every aspect of society is restricted in some way,” Bhattacharya said.
He blamed these lockdowns for most of the excess deaths over and above the COVID-19 deaths and said they had failed to control the pandemic.
Lipsitch said that “it feels to me that Jay is describing as lockdown everything that causes harm, even when it’s not locked down.” He noted that the country was truly closed down for 2 months or so in the spring.
“All of these harms I agree are real,” said Lipsitch. “But they are because the normal life of our society is being interfered with by viral transmission and by people’s inability to live their normal lives.”
Closures and lockdowns are essential to delaying cases and deaths, said Lipsitch. “A case today is worse than a case tomorrow and a lot worse than a case 6 months from now,” he said, noting that a vaccine or improved therapeutics could evolve.
“Delay is not nothing,” Lipsitch added. “It’s actually the goal as I see it, and as the John Snow memo says, we want to keep the virus under control in such a way as that the vulnerable people are not at risk.”
He predicted that cases will continue to grow exponentially because the nation is “not even close to herd immunity.” And, if intensive care units fill up, “there will be a responsive lockdown,” he said, adding that he did not endorse that as a general matter or favor it as a default position.
Bhattacharya claimed that Sweden has tallied only 1800 excess deaths since the pandemic began. “That’s lockdown harm avoided,” he said, advocating a similar strategy for the United States. But, infections have been on the rise in Sweden, and the nation has a higher COVID-19 death rate — with 6000 deaths — than other Nordic countries.
“If we keep this policy of lockdown we will have the same kind of outcomes we’ve already had — high excess deaths and sort of indifferent control of COVID,” Bhattacharya said.
“We’re still going to have misery and death going forward until we reach a point where there’s sufficient immunity either though a vaccine or through natural infection,” he said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
United States adds nearly 74,000 more children with COVID-19
The new weekly high for COVID-19 cases in children announced last week has been surpassed already, as the United States experienced almost 74,000 new pediatric cases for the week ending Nov. 5, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total number of COVID-19 cases in children is now 927,518 in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.
Cumulatively, children represent 11.3% of all COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions, up from 11.1% a week ago. For just the past week, those 73,883 children represent 13.0% of the 567,672 new cases reported among all ages. That proportion peaked at 16.9% in mid-September, the AAP/CHA data show.
Dropping down to the state level, cumulative proportions as of Nov. 5 range from 5.2% in New Jersey to 23.3% in Wyoming, with 11 other states over 15%. California has had more cases, 100,856, than any other state, and Vermont the fewest at 329, the AAP and CHA said.
The national rate per 100,000 children is now 1,232, up from 1,134 the previous week and more than doubled since mid-August (582.2 per 100,000 on Aug. 20). North Dakota’s rate of 3,990 per 100,000 children is the highest of any state (South Dakota is next at 2,779), while Vermont is again the lowest at 245 per 100,000, based on data collected from state health department websites.
Two COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week ending Nov. 5, bringing the total to 123 but leaving the overall proportion of deaths in children unchanged at 0.06% of all deaths. Texas has reported the most COVID-19 deaths in children with 29, while 15 states have recorded no deaths so far (mortality data in children reported by 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA said.
The new weekly high for COVID-19 cases in children announced last week has been surpassed already, as the United States experienced almost 74,000 new pediatric cases for the week ending Nov. 5, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total number of COVID-19 cases in children is now 927,518 in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.
Cumulatively, children represent 11.3% of all COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions, up from 11.1% a week ago. For just the past week, those 73,883 children represent 13.0% of the 567,672 new cases reported among all ages. That proportion peaked at 16.9% in mid-September, the AAP/CHA data show.
Dropping down to the state level, cumulative proportions as of Nov. 5 range from 5.2% in New Jersey to 23.3% in Wyoming, with 11 other states over 15%. California has had more cases, 100,856, than any other state, and Vermont the fewest at 329, the AAP and CHA said.
The national rate per 100,000 children is now 1,232, up from 1,134 the previous week and more than doubled since mid-August (582.2 per 100,000 on Aug. 20). North Dakota’s rate of 3,990 per 100,000 children is the highest of any state (South Dakota is next at 2,779), while Vermont is again the lowest at 245 per 100,000, based on data collected from state health department websites.
Two COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week ending Nov. 5, bringing the total to 123 but leaving the overall proportion of deaths in children unchanged at 0.06% of all deaths. Texas has reported the most COVID-19 deaths in children with 29, while 15 states have recorded no deaths so far (mortality data in children reported by 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA said.
The new weekly high for COVID-19 cases in children announced last week has been surpassed already, as the United States experienced almost 74,000 new pediatric cases for the week ending Nov. 5, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total number of COVID-19 cases in children is now 927,518 in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.
Cumulatively, children represent 11.3% of all COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions, up from 11.1% a week ago. For just the past week, those 73,883 children represent 13.0% of the 567,672 new cases reported among all ages. That proportion peaked at 16.9% in mid-September, the AAP/CHA data show.
Dropping down to the state level, cumulative proportions as of Nov. 5 range from 5.2% in New Jersey to 23.3% in Wyoming, with 11 other states over 15%. California has had more cases, 100,856, than any other state, and Vermont the fewest at 329, the AAP and CHA said.
The national rate per 100,000 children is now 1,232, up from 1,134 the previous week and more than doubled since mid-August (582.2 per 100,000 on Aug. 20). North Dakota’s rate of 3,990 per 100,000 children is the highest of any state (South Dakota is next at 2,779), while Vermont is again the lowest at 245 per 100,000, based on data collected from state health department websites.
Two COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week ending Nov. 5, bringing the total to 123 but leaving the overall proportion of deaths in children unchanged at 0.06% of all deaths. Texas has reported the most COVID-19 deaths in children with 29, while 15 states have recorded no deaths so far (mortality data in children reported by 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA said.
Food insecurity called urgent issue you must address
and advocate on behalf of those experiencing or at risk of food insecurity, according to Kofi Essel, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s National Hospital in Washington.
More than one in four adults are dealing with food access hardships during the pandemic, Dr. Essel said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food insecurity is often interchangeable with hunger and refers to limited or uncertain availability of foods that are nutritious and safe.
“Food insecurity is as much about the threat of deprivation as it is about deprivation itself: A food-insecure life means a life lived in fear of hunger, and the psychological toll that takes,” according to a 2020 New York Times photo feature on food insecurity by Brenda Ann Kenneally that Dr. Essel quoted.
The lived experience of food insecure households includes food anxiety, a preoccupation with being able to get enough food that takes up cognitive bandwidth and prevents people from being able to focus on other important things. Another feature of food-insecure homes is a monotony of diet, which often involves an increase in caloric density and decrease in nutritional quality. As food insecurity grows more dire, adults’ food intake decreases, and then children’s intake decreases as adults seek out any way to get food, including “socially unacceptable” ways, which can include food pantries and bartering for food.
Food insecurity is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes even after accounting for other confounders, including decreased overall health, mental health, and educational outcomes. It’s also associated with an increase in developmental delays, hospitalizations, iron deficiency, asthma, and birth defects, among other problems. Somewhat paradoxically, it’s associated with both an increase and a decrease in obesity in the research.
Megan J. Gray, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and population health at Dell Medical School at the The University of Texas at Austin, attended Dr. Essel’s session because food insecurity during COVID-19 now affects about half her patients, according to screening research she’s conducted.
“I wanted to learn more about the nuances of screening and using language and talking points that are helpful with families and with staff in building a culture of discussing food insecurity in our clinics,” Dr. Gray said in an interview. “What I’ve learned in my clinic is that if we don’t ask about it, families aren’t telling us – food insecurity is hiding in plain sight.”
She particularly appreciated Dr. Essel’s slides on the progression of food insecurity and how they acknowledged the mental health burden of food insecurity among parents.
“Right now during COVID-19, I see more patients I would call ‘socially complex’ rather than ‘medically complex,’ ” she said. “We all need to get a crash course in social work and Dr. Essel’s presentation is a great starting place.”
Screening for food insecurity
Beginning in 2015, an AAP policy statement charged pediatricians to “screen and intervene” with regard to food insecurity and their patients, Dr. Essel said. The statement also called for pediatricians to advocate for programs and policies that end childhood food insecurity.
The policy statement recommended a validated two-question screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign:
1. “Within the past 12 months, we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”
2. “Within the past 12 months, the food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”
But in screening, you need to be conscious of how dignity intersects with food insecurity concerns, Dr. Essel said.
“We need to create dignity for our families,” he said. “We need to create a safe environment for our families and use appropriate tools when necessary to be able to identify families that are struggling with food insecurity.”
That need is seen in research on food screening. The Hunger Vital Signs questions can be asked with a dichotomous variable, as a yes/no question, or on a Likert scale, though the latter is a more complex way to ask.
A 2017 study found, however, that asking with “yes/no” answers missed more than a quarter of at-risk families. In the AAP survey using “yes/no” answers, 31% of families screened positive for being at risk of food insecurity, compared with 46% when the same question was asked on a Likert scale. It seems the ability to answer with “sometimes” feels “safer” than answering “yes,” Dr. Essel said.
Another factor that potentially affects answers is how doctors ask. In a March 2020 study at a single primary care practice, 16% of families screened positive with yes/no responses to a food insecurity screen when the questions were written, compared with 10% of positive screens with verbal responses (P < .001).
Epidemiology of food insecurity
The most updated United States Department of Agriculture report on food insecurity released in September shows the United States finally reached prerecession levels in 2019, with 11% of families designated as “food insecure.” But 2019 data cannot show what has occurred since the pandemic.
Further, the numbers are higher in households with children: Fourteen percent, or one in seven households with children, are experiencing food insecurity. Racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity have remained consistent over the past 2 decades, with about twice as many Black and Hispanic homes experiencing food insecurity as White homes.
More recent research using Census Household Pulse Surveys has found a tremendous increase in food insecurity for children in 2020. One in three Black children and one in four Hispanic children are food insecure, according to these surveys. The rates are one in six for Asian households and one in ten for White households.
“The disparity is consistent,” Dr. Essel said. “We see what COVID has done. We once may have described it as a great equalizer – everyone is touched in the same way – but the reality is, this is actually a great magnifier. It’s revealing to us and magnifying disparities that have existed for far too long and has really allowed us to see it in a new way.”
A big part of disparities in food insecurity is disparities in wealth, “the safety net or cushion for families when things go wrong,” Dr. Essel said. The median wealth of White Americans in 2016 was $171,000, compared to $20,700 among Latinx Americans and $17,600 among Black Americans, according to the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances.
Food insecurity interventions
Federal nutrition programs – such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs – are key to addressing food insecurity, Dr. Essel said.
“They have a long track record of rescuing families out of poverty, of rescuing families from food security and improving overall health of families,” he said.
But emergency food relief programs are important as well. Four in 10 families currently coming into food pantries are new recipients, and these resources have seen a 60% increase in clients, he said.
“This is utterly unreasonable for them to be able to manage,” he said. “Food pantries are essential but inadequate to compensate for large numbers of families,” even while they also may be the only option for families unable or unwilling to access federal programs. For example, for every one meal that food banks can provide, SNAP can provide nine meals, Dr. Essel said. Further, during times of economic downtown, every SNAP $1 spent generates $1.50 to $2 in economic activity.
Currently, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provides benefits to families for school breakfast and lunch and has been extended through December 2021. Another federal pandemic response was to increase SNAP to the maximum household benefit for families, about $646 for a family of four, although 40% of households were already receiving the maximum benefit.
Food insecurity advocacy
You can advocate for any one of multiple pillars when it comes to food insecurity, Dr. Essel said. “Food cannot solve food insecurity by itself,” he said. “We have to think about root causes – systemic causes – and think about unemployment, livable wage, systemic racism, oppression, an inequitable food system. All of these things are pillars that any of you can advocate for when recognizing a family that is struggling with food insecurity.”
He offered several suggestions for advocacy:
- Join your local AAP chapter and prioritize food insecurity.
- Join a local antihunger task force.
- Make your clinical environment as safe as possible for families to respond to questions about food insecurity.
- Know what’s happening in your community immigrant populations.
- Provide up-to-date information to families about eligibility for federal programs.
- Share stories through op-eds and letters to the editor, and by contacting congressional representatives and providing expert testimony to school boards and city councils.
- Educate others about food insecurity through the above channels and on social media.
Jessica Lazerov, MD, a general pediatrician at Children’s National Anacostia and assistant professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, said the session was fantastic.
“Dr. Essel went beyond the basics of food insecurity, delving into the root causes, potential solutions, and important considerations when screening for food insecurity in practice,” Dr. Lazerov said in an interview. “I enjoyed his focus on advocacy, as well as the fact that he spent a bit of time reviewing how the COVID pandemic has affected food insecurity. I truly felt empowered to take my advocacy efforts a step further as Dr. Essel laid out concrete, actionable next steps, as well as a review of the most relevant and current information about food insecurity.”
Dr. Essel, Dr. Lazerov, and Dr. Gray have no relevant financial disclosures.
and advocate on behalf of those experiencing or at risk of food insecurity, according to Kofi Essel, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s National Hospital in Washington.
More than one in four adults are dealing with food access hardships during the pandemic, Dr. Essel said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food insecurity is often interchangeable with hunger and refers to limited or uncertain availability of foods that are nutritious and safe.
“Food insecurity is as much about the threat of deprivation as it is about deprivation itself: A food-insecure life means a life lived in fear of hunger, and the psychological toll that takes,” according to a 2020 New York Times photo feature on food insecurity by Brenda Ann Kenneally that Dr. Essel quoted.
The lived experience of food insecure households includes food anxiety, a preoccupation with being able to get enough food that takes up cognitive bandwidth and prevents people from being able to focus on other important things. Another feature of food-insecure homes is a monotony of diet, which often involves an increase in caloric density and decrease in nutritional quality. As food insecurity grows more dire, adults’ food intake decreases, and then children’s intake decreases as adults seek out any way to get food, including “socially unacceptable” ways, which can include food pantries and bartering for food.
Food insecurity is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes even after accounting for other confounders, including decreased overall health, mental health, and educational outcomes. It’s also associated with an increase in developmental delays, hospitalizations, iron deficiency, asthma, and birth defects, among other problems. Somewhat paradoxically, it’s associated with both an increase and a decrease in obesity in the research.
Megan J. Gray, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and population health at Dell Medical School at the The University of Texas at Austin, attended Dr. Essel’s session because food insecurity during COVID-19 now affects about half her patients, according to screening research she’s conducted.
“I wanted to learn more about the nuances of screening and using language and talking points that are helpful with families and with staff in building a culture of discussing food insecurity in our clinics,” Dr. Gray said in an interview. “What I’ve learned in my clinic is that if we don’t ask about it, families aren’t telling us – food insecurity is hiding in plain sight.”
She particularly appreciated Dr. Essel’s slides on the progression of food insecurity and how they acknowledged the mental health burden of food insecurity among parents.
“Right now during COVID-19, I see more patients I would call ‘socially complex’ rather than ‘medically complex,’ ” she said. “We all need to get a crash course in social work and Dr. Essel’s presentation is a great starting place.”
Screening for food insecurity
Beginning in 2015, an AAP policy statement charged pediatricians to “screen and intervene” with regard to food insecurity and their patients, Dr. Essel said. The statement also called for pediatricians to advocate for programs and policies that end childhood food insecurity.
The policy statement recommended a validated two-question screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign:
1. “Within the past 12 months, we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”
2. “Within the past 12 months, the food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”
But in screening, you need to be conscious of how dignity intersects with food insecurity concerns, Dr. Essel said.
“We need to create dignity for our families,” he said. “We need to create a safe environment for our families and use appropriate tools when necessary to be able to identify families that are struggling with food insecurity.”
That need is seen in research on food screening. The Hunger Vital Signs questions can be asked with a dichotomous variable, as a yes/no question, or on a Likert scale, though the latter is a more complex way to ask.
A 2017 study found, however, that asking with “yes/no” answers missed more than a quarter of at-risk families. In the AAP survey using “yes/no” answers, 31% of families screened positive for being at risk of food insecurity, compared with 46% when the same question was asked on a Likert scale. It seems the ability to answer with “sometimes” feels “safer” than answering “yes,” Dr. Essel said.
Another factor that potentially affects answers is how doctors ask. In a March 2020 study at a single primary care practice, 16% of families screened positive with yes/no responses to a food insecurity screen when the questions were written, compared with 10% of positive screens with verbal responses (P < .001).
Epidemiology of food insecurity
The most updated United States Department of Agriculture report on food insecurity released in September shows the United States finally reached prerecession levels in 2019, with 11% of families designated as “food insecure.” But 2019 data cannot show what has occurred since the pandemic.
Further, the numbers are higher in households with children: Fourteen percent, or one in seven households with children, are experiencing food insecurity. Racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity have remained consistent over the past 2 decades, with about twice as many Black and Hispanic homes experiencing food insecurity as White homes.
More recent research using Census Household Pulse Surveys has found a tremendous increase in food insecurity for children in 2020. One in three Black children and one in four Hispanic children are food insecure, according to these surveys. The rates are one in six for Asian households and one in ten for White households.
“The disparity is consistent,” Dr. Essel said. “We see what COVID has done. We once may have described it as a great equalizer – everyone is touched in the same way – but the reality is, this is actually a great magnifier. It’s revealing to us and magnifying disparities that have existed for far too long and has really allowed us to see it in a new way.”
A big part of disparities in food insecurity is disparities in wealth, “the safety net or cushion for families when things go wrong,” Dr. Essel said. The median wealth of White Americans in 2016 was $171,000, compared to $20,700 among Latinx Americans and $17,600 among Black Americans, according to the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances.
Food insecurity interventions
Federal nutrition programs – such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs – are key to addressing food insecurity, Dr. Essel said.
“They have a long track record of rescuing families out of poverty, of rescuing families from food security and improving overall health of families,” he said.
But emergency food relief programs are important as well. Four in 10 families currently coming into food pantries are new recipients, and these resources have seen a 60% increase in clients, he said.
“This is utterly unreasonable for them to be able to manage,” he said. “Food pantries are essential but inadequate to compensate for large numbers of families,” even while they also may be the only option for families unable or unwilling to access federal programs. For example, for every one meal that food banks can provide, SNAP can provide nine meals, Dr. Essel said. Further, during times of economic downtown, every SNAP $1 spent generates $1.50 to $2 in economic activity.
Currently, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provides benefits to families for school breakfast and lunch and has been extended through December 2021. Another federal pandemic response was to increase SNAP to the maximum household benefit for families, about $646 for a family of four, although 40% of households were already receiving the maximum benefit.
Food insecurity advocacy
You can advocate for any one of multiple pillars when it comes to food insecurity, Dr. Essel said. “Food cannot solve food insecurity by itself,” he said. “We have to think about root causes – systemic causes – and think about unemployment, livable wage, systemic racism, oppression, an inequitable food system. All of these things are pillars that any of you can advocate for when recognizing a family that is struggling with food insecurity.”
He offered several suggestions for advocacy:
- Join your local AAP chapter and prioritize food insecurity.
- Join a local antihunger task force.
- Make your clinical environment as safe as possible for families to respond to questions about food insecurity.
- Know what’s happening in your community immigrant populations.
- Provide up-to-date information to families about eligibility for federal programs.
- Share stories through op-eds and letters to the editor, and by contacting congressional representatives and providing expert testimony to school boards and city councils.
- Educate others about food insecurity through the above channels and on social media.
Jessica Lazerov, MD, a general pediatrician at Children’s National Anacostia and assistant professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, said the session was fantastic.
“Dr. Essel went beyond the basics of food insecurity, delving into the root causes, potential solutions, and important considerations when screening for food insecurity in practice,” Dr. Lazerov said in an interview. “I enjoyed his focus on advocacy, as well as the fact that he spent a bit of time reviewing how the COVID pandemic has affected food insecurity. I truly felt empowered to take my advocacy efforts a step further as Dr. Essel laid out concrete, actionable next steps, as well as a review of the most relevant and current information about food insecurity.”
Dr. Essel, Dr. Lazerov, and Dr. Gray have no relevant financial disclosures.
and advocate on behalf of those experiencing or at risk of food insecurity, according to Kofi Essel, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s National Hospital in Washington.
More than one in four adults are dealing with food access hardships during the pandemic, Dr. Essel said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Food insecurity is often interchangeable with hunger and refers to limited or uncertain availability of foods that are nutritious and safe.
“Food insecurity is as much about the threat of deprivation as it is about deprivation itself: A food-insecure life means a life lived in fear of hunger, and the psychological toll that takes,” according to a 2020 New York Times photo feature on food insecurity by Brenda Ann Kenneally that Dr. Essel quoted.
The lived experience of food insecure households includes food anxiety, a preoccupation with being able to get enough food that takes up cognitive bandwidth and prevents people from being able to focus on other important things. Another feature of food-insecure homes is a monotony of diet, which often involves an increase in caloric density and decrease in nutritional quality. As food insecurity grows more dire, adults’ food intake decreases, and then children’s intake decreases as adults seek out any way to get food, including “socially unacceptable” ways, which can include food pantries and bartering for food.
Food insecurity is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes even after accounting for other confounders, including decreased overall health, mental health, and educational outcomes. It’s also associated with an increase in developmental delays, hospitalizations, iron deficiency, asthma, and birth defects, among other problems. Somewhat paradoxically, it’s associated with both an increase and a decrease in obesity in the research.
Megan J. Gray, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and population health at Dell Medical School at the The University of Texas at Austin, attended Dr. Essel’s session because food insecurity during COVID-19 now affects about half her patients, according to screening research she’s conducted.
“I wanted to learn more about the nuances of screening and using language and talking points that are helpful with families and with staff in building a culture of discussing food insecurity in our clinics,” Dr. Gray said in an interview. “What I’ve learned in my clinic is that if we don’t ask about it, families aren’t telling us – food insecurity is hiding in plain sight.”
She particularly appreciated Dr. Essel’s slides on the progression of food insecurity and how they acknowledged the mental health burden of food insecurity among parents.
“Right now during COVID-19, I see more patients I would call ‘socially complex’ rather than ‘medically complex,’ ” she said. “We all need to get a crash course in social work and Dr. Essel’s presentation is a great starting place.”
Screening for food insecurity
Beginning in 2015, an AAP policy statement charged pediatricians to “screen and intervene” with regard to food insecurity and their patients, Dr. Essel said. The statement also called for pediatricians to advocate for programs and policies that end childhood food insecurity.
The policy statement recommended a validated two-question screening tool called the Hunger Vital Sign:
1. “Within the past 12 months, we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.”
2. “Within the past 12 months, the food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.”
But in screening, you need to be conscious of how dignity intersects with food insecurity concerns, Dr. Essel said.
“We need to create dignity for our families,” he said. “We need to create a safe environment for our families and use appropriate tools when necessary to be able to identify families that are struggling with food insecurity.”
That need is seen in research on food screening. The Hunger Vital Signs questions can be asked with a dichotomous variable, as a yes/no question, or on a Likert scale, though the latter is a more complex way to ask.
A 2017 study found, however, that asking with “yes/no” answers missed more than a quarter of at-risk families. In the AAP survey using “yes/no” answers, 31% of families screened positive for being at risk of food insecurity, compared with 46% when the same question was asked on a Likert scale. It seems the ability to answer with “sometimes” feels “safer” than answering “yes,” Dr. Essel said.
Another factor that potentially affects answers is how doctors ask. In a March 2020 study at a single primary care practice, 16% of families screened positive with yes/no responses to a food insecurity screen when the questions were written, compared with 10% of positive screens with verbal responses (P < .001).
Epidemiology of food insecurity
The most updated United States Department of Agriculture report on food insecurity released in September shows the United States finally reached prerecession levels in 2019, with 11% of families designated as “food insecure.” But 2019 data cannot show what has occurred since the pandemic.
Further, the numbers are higher in households with children: Fourteen percent, or one in seven households with children, are experiencing food insecurity. Racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity have remained consistent over the past 2 decades, with about twice as many Black and Hispanic homes experiencing food insecurity as White homes.
More recent research using Census Household Pulse Surveys has found a tremendous increase in food insecurity for children in 2020. One in three Black children and one in four Hispanic children are food insecure, according to these surveys. The rates are one in six for Asian households and one in ten for White households.
“The disparity is consistent,” Dr. Essel said. “We see what COVID has done. We once may have described it as a great equalizer – everyone is touched in the same way – but the reality is, this is actually a great magnifier. It’s revealing to us and magnifying disparities that have existed for far too long and has really allowed us to see it in a new way.”
A big part of disparities in food insecurity is disparities in wealth, “the safety net or cushion for families when things go wrong,” Dr. Essel said. The median wealth of White Americans in 2016 was $171,000, compared to $20,700 among Latinx Americans and $17,600 among Black Americans, according to the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances.
Food insecurity interventions
Federal nutrition programs – such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs – are key to addressing food insecurity, Dr. Essel said.
“They have a long track record of rescuing families out of poverty, of rescuing families from food security and improving overall health of families,” he said.
But emergency food relief programs are important as well. Four in 10 families currently coming into food pantries are new recipients, and these resources have seen a 60% increase in clients, he said.
“This is utterly unreasonable for them to be able to manage,” he said. “Food pantries are essential but inadequate to compensate for large numbers of families,” even while they also may be the only option for families unable or unwilling to access federal programs. For example, for every one meal that food banks can provide, SNAP can provide nine meals, Dr. Essel said. Further, during times of economic downtown, every SNAP $1 spent generates $1.50 to $2 in economic activity.
Currently, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provides benefits to families for school breakfast and lunch and has been extended through December 2021. Another federal pandemic response was to increase SNAP to the maximum household benefit for families, about $646 for a family of four, although 40% of households were already receiving the maximum benefit.
Food insecurity advocacy
You can advocate for any one of multiple pillars when it comes to food insecurity, Dr. Essel said. “Food cannot solve food insecurity by itself,” he said. “We have to think about root causes – systemic causes – and think about unemployment, livable wage, systemic racism, oppression, an inequitable food system. All of these things are pillars that any of you can advocate for when recognizing a family that is struggling with food insecurity.”
He offered several suggestions for advocacy:
- Join your local AAP chapter and prioritize food insecurity.
- Join a local antihunger task force.
- Make your clinical environment as safe as possible for families to respond to questions about food insecurity.
- Know what’s happening in your community immigrant populations.
- Provide up-to-date information to families about eligibility for federal programs.
- Share stories through op-eds and letters to the editor, and by contacting congressional representatives and providing expert testimony to school boards and city councils.
- Educate others about food insecurity through the above channels and on social media.
Jessica Lazerov, MD, a general pediatrician at Children’s National Anacostia and assistant professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, said the session was fantastic.
“Dr. Essel went beyond the basics of food insecurity, delving into the root causes, potential solutions, and important considerations when screening for food insecurity in practice,” Dr. Lazerov said in an interview. “I enjoyed his focus on advocacy, as well as the fact that he spent a bit of time reviewing how the COVID pandemic has affected food insecurity. I truly felt empowered to take my advocacy efforts a step further as Dr. Essel laid out concrete, actionable next steps, as well as a review of the most relevant and current information about food insecurity.”
Dr. Essel, Dr. Lazerov, and Dr. Gray have no relevant financial disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 2020
Proinflammatory dietary pattern linked to higher CV risk
Dietary patterns with higher inflammatory potential were significantly associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke in a new pooled analysis of three prospective cohort studies.
The analysis included 210,145 U.S. women and men followed for up to 32 years in the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.
After adjustment for use of anti-inflammatory medications and CVD risk factors, those whose dietary pattern ranked in the highest quintile of inflammatory potential had a 38% higher risk of CVD (hazard ratio comparing highest with lowest quintiles, 1.38), a 46% higher risk of coronary heart disease (HR, 1.46), and a 28% higher risk of stroke (HR, 1.28) (all P for trend < .001).
Jun Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, published the findings of their study in the Nov. 10 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The inflammatory potential of a diet was assessed using a food-based, dietary index called the “empirical dietary inflammatory pattern” or EDIP.
In an interview, Dr. Li explained that the EDIP was developed 4 years ago by many of the same authors involved with this study, including nutrition heavyweights Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH, and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD, both from Harvard.
“We summarized all the foods people eat into 39 defined food groups and did a reduced-rank regression analysis that looked at these 39 food groups and three inflammatory markers – interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha receptor 2. We found 18 food groups that are most predictive of these biomarkers, and the EDIP was calculated as the weighted sum of these 18 food groups.”
Individuals who had higher intakes of green-leafy vegetables (kale, spinach, arugula), dark-yellow vegetables (pumpkin, yellow peppers, carrots), whole grains, fruits, tea, coffee and wine had lower long-term CVD risk than those with higher intakes of red meat, processed meat, organ meat, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.
The associations were consistent across cohorts and between sexes and remained significant in multiple sensitivity analysis that adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking pack-years, use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications, sodium intake, and blood pressure.
In a secondary analysis, diets with higher inflammatory potential were also associated with significantly higher biomarker levels indicative of more systemic, vascular, and metabolic inflammation, as well as less favorable lipid profiles.
“We wanted to be able to provide guidance on dietary patterns and food combinations,” said Dr. Li. “If you tell people to eat more polyunsaturated fats instead of saturated fat or trans fat, most people don’t know what foods are higher and lower in those nutrients. Also, many foods have different nutrients – some of which are good and some of which are bad – so we wanted to help people find the foods with the higher proportion of healthy nutrients rather than point out specific nutrients to avoid.”
Researchers used prospectively gathered data from the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II starting from 1984 and from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. After excluding participants with missing diet information or previously diagnosed heart disease, stroke or cancer, over 210,000 participants were included in the analysis. Participants completed a survey every 4 years to ascertain dietary intake.
Prevention, not treatment
In an editorial comment, Ramon Estruch, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Clinic in Barcelona, and colleagues suggested that it might be time for better dietary guidelines.
“A better knowledge of health protection provided by different foods and dietary patterns, mainly their anti-inflammatory properties, should provide the basis for designing even healthier dietary patterns to protect against heart disease,” the editorialists wrote.
They added extra-virgin olive oil, fatty fish, and tomatoes to the list of foods with “established anti-inflammatory activity.”
In a comment, Dr. Estruch said the findings of this new study are confirmatory of the PREDIMED trial, which showed a reduction in risk of major CV events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk assigned to an anti-inflammatory Mediterranean diet pattern supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts as compared with those assigned to a reduced-fat diet.
“The study of Jun Li et al. confirms that an anti-inflammatory diet is useful to prevent cardiovascular events and, more important, that healthy dietary patterns may be even healthier if subjects increase consumption of foods with the highest anti-inflammatory potential,” he said, adding that “mechanistic explanations add plausibility to the results of observational studies.”
Dr. Estruch was the principal investigator of PREDIMED. This trial was originally published in 2013 and then retracted and republished in 2018, with some required corrections, but the results had not materially changed.
Dr. Li is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Boston Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Dr. Estruch disclosed no financial relationships relevant to the contents of this article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dietary patterns with higher inflammatory potential were significantly associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke in a new pooled analysis of three prospective cohort studies.
The analysis included 210,145 U.S. women and men followed for up to 32 years in the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.
After adjustment for use of anti-inflammatory medications and CVD risk factors, those whose dietary pattern ranked in the highest quintile of inflammatory potential had a 38% higher risk of CVD (hazard ratio comparing highest with lowest quintiles, 1.38), a 46% higher risk of coronary heart disease (HR, 1.46), and a 28% higher risk of stroke (HR, 1.28) (all P for trend < .001).
Jun Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, published the findings of their study in the Nov. 10 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The inflammatory potential of a diet was assessed using a food-based, dietary index called the “empirical dietary inflammatory pattern” or EDIP.
In an interview, Dr. Li explained that the EDIP was developed 4 years ago by many of the same authors involved with this study, including nutrition heavyweights Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH, and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD, both from Harvard.
“We summarized all the foods people eat into 39 defined food groups and did a reduced-rank regression analysis that looked at these 39 food groups and three inflammatory markers – interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha receptor 2. We found 18 food groups that are most predictive of these biomarkers, and the EDIP was calculated as the weighted sum of these 18 food groups.”
Individuals who had higher intakes of green-leafy vegetables (kale, spinach, arugula), dark-yellow vegetables (pumpkin, yellow peppers, carrots), whole grains, fruits, tea, coffee and wine had lower long-term CVD risk than those with higher intakes of red meat, processed meat, organ meat, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.
The associations were consistent across cohorts and between sexes and remained significant in multiple sensitivity analysis that adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking pack-years, use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications, sodium intake, and blood pressure.
In a secondary analysis, diets with higher inflammatory potential were also associated with significantly higher biomarker levels indicative of more systemic, vascular, and metabolic inflammation, as well as less favorable lipid profiles.
“We wanted to be able to provide guidance on dietary patterns and food combinations,” said Dr. Li. “If you tell people to eat more polyunsaturated fats instead of saturated fat or trans fat, most people don’t know what foods are higher and lower in those nutrients. Also, many foods have different nutrients – some of which are good and some of which are bad – so we wanted to help people find the foods with the higher proportion of healthy nutrients rather than point out specific nutrients to avoid.”
Researchers used prospectively gathered data from the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II starting from 1984 and from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. After excluding participants with missing diet information or previously diagnosed heart disease, stroke or cancer, over 210,000 participants were included in the analysis. Participants completed a survey every 4 years to ascertain dietary intake.
Prevention, not treatment
In an editorial comment, Ramon Estruch, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Clinic in Barcelona, and colleagues suggested that it might be time for better dietary guidelines.
“A better knowledge of health protection provided by different foods and dietary patterns, mainly their anti-inflammatory properties, should provide the basis for designing even healthier dietary patterns to protect against heart disease,” the editorialists wrote.
They added extra-virgin olive oil, fatty fish, and tomatoes to the list of foods with “established anti-inflammatory activity.”
In a comment, Dr. Estruch said the findings of this new study are confirmatory of the PREDIMED trial, which showed a reduction in risk of major CV events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk assigned to an anti-inflammatory Mediterranean diet pattern supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts as compared with those assigned to a reduced-fat diet.
“The study of Jun Li et al. confirms that an anti-inflammatory diet is useful to prevent cardiovascular events and, more important, that healthy dietary patterns may be even healthier if subjects increase consumption of foods with the highest anti-inflammatory potential,” he said, adding that “mechanistic explanations add plausibility to the results of observational studies.”
Dr. Estruch was the principal investigator of PREDIMED. This trial was originally published in 2013 and then retracted and republished in 2018, with some required corrections, but the results had not materially changed.
Dr. Li is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Boston Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Dr. Estruch disclosed no financial relationships relevant to the contents of this article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dietary patterns with higher inflammatory potential were significantly associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke in a new pooled analysis of three prospective cohort studies.
The analysis included 210,145 U.S. women and men followed for up to 32 years in the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.
After adjustment for use of anti-inflammatory medications and CVD risk factors, those whose dietary pattern ranked in the highest quintile of inflammatory potential had a 38% higher risk of CVD (hazard ratio comparing highest with lowest quintiles, 1.38), a 46% higher risk of coronary heart disease (HR, 1.46), and a 28% higher risk of stroke (HR, 1.28) (all P for trend < .001).
Jun Li, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, published the findings of their study in the Nov. 10 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The inflammatory potential of a diet was assessed using a food-based, dietary index called the “empirical dietary inflammatory pattern” or EDIP.
In an interview, Dr. Li explained that the EDIP was developed 4 years ago by many of the same authors involved with this study, including nutrition heavyweights Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH, and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD, both from Harvard.
“We summarized all the foods people eat into 39 defined food groups and did a reduced-rank regression analysis that looked at these 39 food groups and three inflammatory markers – interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha receptor 2. We found 18 food groups that are most predictive of these biomarkers, and the EDIP was calculated as the weighted sum of these 18 food groups.”
Individuals who had higher intakes of green-leafy vegetables (kale, spinach, arugula), dark-yellow vegetables (pumpkin, yellow peppers, carrots), whole grains, fruits, tea, coffee and wine had lower long-term CVD risk than those with higher intakes of red meat, processed meat, organ meat, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.
The associations were consistent across cohorts and between sexes and remained significant in multiple sensitivity analysis that adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking pack-years, use of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications, sodium intake, and blood pressure.
In a secondary analysis, diets with higher inflammatory potential were also associated with significantly higher biomarker levels indicative of more systemic, vascular, and metabolic inflammation, as well as less favorable lipid profiles.
“We wanted to be able to provide guidance on dietary patterns and food combinations,” said Dr. Li. “If you tell people to eat more polyunsaturated fats instead of saturated fat or trans fat, most people don’t know what foods are higher and lower in those nutrients. Also, many foods have different nutrients – some of which are good and some of which are bad – so we wanted to help people find the foods with the higher proportion of healthy nutrients rather than point out specific nutrients to avoid.”
Researchers used prospectively gathered data from the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II starting from 1984 and from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. After excluding participants with missing diet information or previously diagnosed heart disease, stroke or cancer, over 210,000 participants were included in the analysis. Participants completed a survey every 4 years to ascertain dietary intake.
Prevention, not treatment
In an editorial comment, Ramon Estruch, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Clinic in Barcelona, and colleagues suggested that it might be time for better dietary guidelines.
“A better knowledge of health protection provided by different foods and dietary patterns, mainly their anti-inflammatory properties, should provide the basis for designing even healthier dietary patterns to protect against heart disease,” the editorialists wrote.
They added extra-virgin olive oil, fatty fish, and tomatoes to the list of foods with “established anti-inflammatory activity.”
In a comment, Dr. Estruch said the findings of this new study are confirmatory of the PREDIMED trial, which showed a reduction in risk of major CV events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk assigned to an anti-inflammatory Mediterranean diet pattern supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts as compared with those assigned to a reduced-fat diet.
“The study of Jun Li et al. confirms that an anti-inflammatory diet is useful to prevent cardiovascular events and, more important, that healthy dietary patterns may be even healthier if subjects increase consumption of foods with the highest anti-inflammatory potential,” he said, adding that “mechanistic explanations add plausibility to the results of observational studies.”
Dr. Estruch was the principal investigator of PREDIMED. This trial was originally published in 2013 and then retracted and republished in 2018, with some required corrections, but the results had not materially changed.
Dr. Li is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Boston Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Dr. Estruch disclosed no financial relationships relevant to the contents of this article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
No link shown between thyroid dysfunction and heart failure
Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.
“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.
Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.
Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction
“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.
“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.
But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”
Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”
It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”
Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link
The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).
Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.
Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.
In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.
Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.
The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.
The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”
“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.
Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.
“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.
Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.
Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction
“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.
“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.
But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”
Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”
It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”
Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link
The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).
Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.
Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.
In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.
Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.
The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.
The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”
“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.
Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.
“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.
Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.
Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction
“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.
“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.
But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”
Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”
It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”
Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link
The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).
Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.
Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.
In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.
Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.
The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.
The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”
“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
PCI success vs. meds only in diabetes may depend on LDL-C control
In order for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to shine, compared with meds alone in patients with type-2 diabetes and stable coronary disease (CAD), it needs help from aggressive control of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of three major randomized trials.
Performing PCI in such patients with diabetes conferred further benefit over optimal medical therapy (OMT) for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) only among those whose LDL-C levels had been pushed below the guidelines-specified threshold of 70 mg/dL within 1 year.
At that level of LDL-C control, PCI, compared with the meds-alone strategy, was followed by a nearly 40% drop in 4-year risk for the composite endpoint, which consisted of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Also for patients reaching a 1-year LDL-C of <70 mg/dL, the risk of MACCE was similar for those who had been assigned to coronary bypass surgery (CABG), compared with PCI. But that risk was significantly lower for the CABG group among those reaching LDL-C levels above that threshold.
“The strategy of revascularization with the LDL lowering, that’s the combination that seems to be a winner” in such patients with diabetes and stable CAD, lead author Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc, said in an interview.
If their LDL-C “stays above 70 mg/dL, they don’t really enjoy any benefit of PCI. It’s a message to our interventional community to really drive that LDL down,” said Dr. Farkouh, of the University of Toronto. “Not only with statins, but perhaps with PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and other therapies to lower that LDL-C.”
The analysis, published Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, pooled more than 4,000 patients with diabetes and stable CAD randomized in the BARI 2D, FREEDOM, and COURAGE trials.
The new study adds a twist to an ongoing theme throughout some meta-analyses and clinical trials like ISCHEMIA since the results of COURAGE were unveiled 13 years ago. The latter trial famously saw no significant difference in death, MI, or stroke in patients with stable CAD assigned to OMT with or without PCI. That set off years of controversy about the relative merits of the revascularization and meds-only strategies in stable CAD that persists today.
But, Dr. Farkouh proposed, whether PCI improves clinical outcomes, compared with meds alone, at least in patients with diabetes, may be tied to the success of LDL-C-lowering therapies in reaching that goal, which in the current study was below 70 mg/dL.
“In this analysis of pooled data from the three major trials, we demonstrate that attaining that level of LDL-C at 1 year portends a better outcome for PCI” in patients with diabetes and stable CAD, he said.
The findings “probably need to be studied further, but it is compelling to think that if we can drive the LDL-C down by one year after the procedure, we have better outcomes with PCI,” compared with a meds-only strategy in patients with diabetes and stable CAD. “That really vindicates a lot of those who believe in PCI,” Dr. Farkouh said.
“What’s surprising to me is, if the patient has an LDL less than 70, why is it that there is a benefit of PCI, compared to medical therapy alone? Because they’re already so aggressively managed, you would think there shouldn’t be a benefit,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, New York University, said in an interview. “For me, that part is difficult to understand.”
The finding somewhat contradicts the results of ISCHEMIA, in which OMT – including LDL-C-lowering therapy – was considered more aggressive than usually managed in practice, Bangalore said. Yet the trial saw no outcomes difference between PCI and the more conservative approach, leading some to speculate that PCI may be a better choice when, for whatever reason, medical therapy isn’t optimal.
The observed superiority of PCI over meds-only at the lowest LDL-C levels is, according to Dr. Banagalore, “more likely because of residual confounding, given the fact that they’re combining three different trials, which are aimed to address different sets of questions.” He was an investigator with the FREEDOM and ISCHEMIA trials but isn’t associated with the current report.
The main message from this observational analysis is that “of course, we want to get the LDL as low as possible in these patients with demonstrated cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “Every one of these patients should be shooting for as low an LDL as possible.”
Regardless of revascularization strategy, he said, “we have to get people on a high-intensity statin, or at least their maximally targeted dose, and have a careful and thoughtful conversation about whether they need additional lowering with, perhaps, ezetimibe, if they’re not below the thresholds we’d like to see them at, in this case, 70 mg/dL.”
Still, the current findings that the relative effects of PCI and CABG in these patients may vary by degree of LDL-C reduction “are interesting, but would have to be tested a little bit more directly,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is not affiliated with the analysis.
An accompanying editorial, which also acknowledges the study’s limitations, says its results “are relevant for clinical practice and may pave the way toward the generation of novel personalized medicine models that can optimize care of patients with type-2 diabetes.”
They “support the concept of an individualized treatment strategy that accounts for a patient’s LDL-C level to estimate clinical outcomes and expected treatment effects after therapeutic interventions,” say the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
“For daily practice, these results also underscore the importance of follow-up LDL-C measurements, both as a risk stratifier and as an indicator for therapy adjustments,” they write, noting that “current guidelines provide no formal recommendation on when to check LDL-C after PCI.”
The meta-analysis followed a total of 4050 patients with diabetes and stable CAD from the three randomized trials, those with evaluable baseline and follow-up LDL-C measurements, for a median of 4 years after the 1-year LDL-C assessment. At that time, at least 90% of patients in each of the trials had statin prescriptions, the group reported.
At one year, 34.5% of the total cohort had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL; their mean was 55.8 mg/dL.
And 42.2% had an LDL-C from 70 mg/dL to <100 mg/dL; their mean was 83.4 mg/dL. Compared with patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, their adjusted hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not elevated at 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86-1.32, P = .54).
Finally, 23.2% had an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; the mean was 123.0 mg/dL. Compared with the group with the lowest 1-year LDL-C, their adjusted HR for MACCE was increased at 1.46 (95% CI, 1.15 - 1.85, P = .002).
That HR among the 42.3% of patients in the PCI cohort, compared with the 33.3% assigned to meds only, climbed significantly only among those in the lowest 1-year LDL-C stratum: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P = .016). Corresponding HRs in the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL strata were close to unity and nonsignificant at P = .71 and P = .98, respectively.
On the other hand, the 24.4% of patients assigned to CABG showed better MACCE outcomes than those in the meds-only group across all three 1-year LDL-C strata.
The risk of MACCE wasn’t significantly altered by CABG, compared with PCI among patients achieving a 1-year LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL. However, it fell by about one-half for CABG vs. PCI in both the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL-C strata, P = .003 and P = .022, respectively.
Dr. Bangalore said he’s entirely behind the results of the study’s comparison of PCI and CABG. “It’s exactly the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward, that if you want to achieve results as good as CABG, do PCI with aggressive medical therapy.” That means second-generation drug-eluting stents for the target lesions, “and aggressive medical therapy to address all of the nontarget lesions, specifically in diabetics.”
It’s possible, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, that there is “no longer a dichotomy between revascularization strategies,” with respect to clinical outcomes, in such patients who maintain an LDL less than 70 mg/dL, as the study suggests.
“But I wonder, if it had continued for another 4 years of follow-up, whether we would see the CABG patients start to have more events,” such that the CABG advantage goes away at higher LDL-C levels, he proposed.
Or, Dr. Lloyd-Jones speculated, if all patients had achieved LDL-C below 70 mg/dL, “would there be such a difference between the PCI and CABG groups? My bet would be that it would be small or abolished.”
Dr. Farkouh discloses receiving research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other study authors can be found with the original article. Editorialist Dr. Navarese discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants from Abbott and Amgen. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In order for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to shine, compared with meds alone in patients with type-2 diabetes and stable coronary disease (CAD), it needs help from aggressive control of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of three major randomized trials.
Performing PCI in such patients with diabetes conferred further benefit over optimal medical therapy (OMT) for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) only among those whose LDL-C levels had been pushed below the guidelines-specified threshold of 70 mg/dL within 1 year.
At that level of LDL-C control, PCI, compared with the meds-alone strategy, was followed by a nearly 40% drop in 4-year risk for the composite endpoint, which consisted of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Also for patients reaching a 1-year LDL-C of <70 mg/dL, the risk of MACCE was similar for those who had been assigned to coronary bypass surgery (CABG), compared with PCI. But that risk was significantly lower for the CABG group among those reaching LDL-C levels above that threshold.
“The strategy of revascularization with the LDL lowering, that’s the combination that seems to be a winner” in such patients with diabetes and stable CAD, lead author Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc, said in an interview.
If their LDL-C “stays above 70 mg/dL, they don’t really enjoy any benefit of PCI. It’s a message to our interventional community to really drive that LDL down,” said Dr. Farkouh, of the University of Toronto. “Not only with statins, but perhaps with PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and other therapies to lower that LDL-C.”
The analysis, published Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, pooled more than 4,000 patients with diabetes and stable CAD randomized in the BARI 2D, FREEDOM, and COURAGE trials.
The new study adds a twist to an ongoing theme throughout some meta-analyses and clinical trials like ISCHEMIA since the results of COURAGE were unveiled 13 years ago. The latter trial famously saw no significant difference in death, MI, or stroke in patients with stable CAD assigned to OMT with or without PCI. That set off years of controversy about the relative merits of the revascularization and meds-only strategies in stable CAD that persists today.
But, Dr. Farkouh proposed, whether PCI improves clinical outcomes, compared with meds alone, at least in patients with diabetes, may be tied to the success of LDL-C-lowering therapies in reaching that goal, which in the current study was below 70 mg/dL.
“In this analysis of pooled data from the three major trials, we demonstrate that attaining that level of LDL-C at 1 year portends a better outcome for PCI” in patients with diabetes and stable CAD, he said.
The findings “probably need to be studied further, but it is compelling to think that if we can drive the LDL-C down by one year after the procedure, we have better outcomes with PCI,” compared with a meds-only strategy in patients with diabetes and stable CAD. “That really vindicates a lot of those who believe in PCI,” Dr. Farkouh said.
“What’s surprising to me is, if the patient has an LDL less than 70, why is it that there is a benefit of PCI, compared to medical therapy alone? Because they’re already so aggressively managed, you would think there shouldn’t be a benefit,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, New York University, said in an interview. “For me, that part is difficult to understand.”
The finding somewhat contradicts the results of ISCHEMIA, in which OMT – including LDL-C-lowering therapy – was considered more aggressive than usually managed in practice, Bangalore said. Yet the trial saw no outcomes difference between PCI and the more conservative approach, leading some to speculate that PCI may be a better choice when, for whatever reason, medical therapy isn’t optimal.
The observed superiority of PCI over meds-only at the lowest LDL-C levels is, according to Dr. Banagalore, “more likely because of residual confounding, given the fact that they’re combining three different trials, which are aimed to address different sets of questions.” He was an investigator with the FREEDOM and ISCHEMIA trials but isn’t associated with the current report.
The main message from this observational analysis is that “of course, we want to get the LDL as low as possible in these patients with demonstrated cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “Every one of these patients should be shooting for as low an LDL as possible.”
Regardless of revascularization strategy, he said, “we have to get people on a high-intensity statin, or at least their maximally targeted dose, and have a careful and thoughtful conversation about whether they need additional lowering with, perhaps, ezetimibe, if they’re not below the thresholds we’d like to see them at, in this case, 70 mg/dL.”
Still, the current findings that the relative effects of PCI and CABG in these patients may vary by degree of LDL-C reduction “are interesting, but would have to be tested a little bit more directly,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is not affiliated with the analysis.
An accompanying editorial, which also acknowledges the study’s limitations, says its results “are relevant for clinical practice and may pave the way toward the generation of novel personalized medicine models that can optimize care of patients with type-2 diabetes.”
They “support the concept of an individualized treatment strategy that accounts for a patient’s LDL-C level to estimate clinical outcomes and expected treatment effects after therapeutic interventions,” say the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
“For daily practice, these results also underscore the importance of follow-up LDL-C measurements, both as a risk stratifier and as an indicator for therapy adjustments,” they write, noting that “current guidelines provide no formal recommendation on when to check LDL-C after PCI.”
The meta-analysis followed a total of 4050 patients with diabetes and stable CAD from the three randomized trials, those with evaluable baseline and follow-up LDL-C measurements, for a median of 4 years after the 1-year LDL-C assessment. At that time, at least 90% of patients in each of the trials had statin prescriptions, the group reported.
At one year, 34.5% of the total cohort had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL; their mean was 55.8 mg/dL.
And 42.2% had an LDL-C from 70 mg/dL to <100 mg/dL; their mean was 83.4 mg/dL. Compared with patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, their adjusted hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not elevated at 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86-1.32, P = .54).
Finally, 23.2% had an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; the mean was 123.0 mg/dL. Compared with the group with the lowest 1-year LDL-C, their adjusted HR for MACCE was increased at 1.46 (95% CI, 1.15 - 1.85, P = .002).
That HR among the 42.3% of patients in the PCI cohort, compared with the 33.3% assigned to meds only, climbed significantly only among those in the lowest 1-year LDL-C stratum: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P = .016). Corresponding HRs in the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL strata were close to unity and nonsignificant at P = .71 and P = .98, respectively.
On the other hand, the 24.4% of patients assigned to CABG showed better MACCE outcomes than those in the meds-only group across all three 1-year LDL-C strata.
The risk of MACCE wasn’t significantly altered by CABG, compared with PCI among patients achieving a 1-year LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL. However, it fell by about one-half for CABG vs. PCI in both the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL-C strata, P = .003 and P = .022, respectively.
Dr. Bangalore said he’s entirely behind the results of the study’s comparison of PCI and CABG. “It’s exactly the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward, that if you want to achieve results as good as CABG, do PCI with aggressive medical therapy.” That means second-generation drug-eluting stents for the target lesions, “and aggressive medical therapy to address all of the nontarget lesions, specifically in diabetics.”
It’s possible, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, that there is “no longer a dichotomy between revascularization strategies,” with respect to clinical outcomes, in such patients who maintain an LDL less than 70 mg/dL, as the study suggests.
“But I wonder, if it had continued for another 4 years of follow-up, whether we would see the CABG patients start to have more events,” such that the CABG advantage goes away at higher LDL-C levels, he proposed.
Or, Dr. Lloyd-Jones speculated, if all patients had achieved LDL-C below 70 mg/dL, “would there be such a difference between the PCI and CABG groups? My bet would be that it would be small or abolished.”
Dr. Farkouh discloses receiving research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other study authors can be found with the original article. Editorialist Dr. Navarese discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants from Abbott and Amgen. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In order for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to shine, compared with meds alone in patients with type-2 diabetes and stable coronary disease (CAD), it needs help from aggressive control of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of three major randomized trials.
Performing PCI in such patients with diabetes conferred further benefit over optimal medical therapy (OMT) for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) only among those whose LDL-C levels had been pushed below the guidelines-specified threshold of 70 mg/dL within 1 year.
At that level of LDL-C control, PCI, compared with the meds-alone strategy, was followed by a nearly 40% drop in 4-year risk for the composite endpoint, which consisted of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Also for patients reaching a 1-year LDL-C of <70 mg/dL, the risk of MACCE was similar for those who had been assigned to coronary bypass surgery (CABG), compared with PCI. But that risk was significantly lower for the CABG group among those reaching LDL-C levels above that threshold.
“The strategy of revascularization with the LDL lowering, that’s the combination that seems to be a winner” in such patients with diabetes and stable CAD, lead author Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc, said in an interview.
If their LDL-C “stays above 70 mg/dL, they don’t really enjoy any benefit of PCI. It’s a message to our interventional community to really drive that LDL down,” said Dr. Farkouh, of the University of Toronto. “Not only with statins, but perhaps with PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and other therapies to lower that LDL-C.”
The analysis, published Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, pooled more than 4,000 patients with diabetes and stable CAD randomized in the BARI 2D, FREEDOM, and COURAGE trials.
The new study adds a twist to an ongoing theme throughout some meta-analyses and clinical trials like ISCHEMIA since the results of COURAGE were unveiled 13 years ago. The latter trial famously saw no significant difference in death, MI, or stroke in patients with stable CAD assigned to OMT with or without PCI. That set off years of controversy about the relative merits of the revascularization and meds-only strategies in stable CAD that persists today.
But, Dr. Farkouh proposed, whether PCI improves clinical outcomes, compared with meds alone, at least in patients with diabetes, may be tied to the success of LDL-C-lowering therapies in reaching that goal, which in the current study was below 70 mg/dL.
“In this analysis of pooled data from the three major trials, we demonstrate that attaining that level of LDL-C at 1 year portends a better outcome for PCI” in patients with diabetes and stable CAD, he said.
The findings “probably need to be studied further, but it is compelling to think that if we can drive the LDL-C down by one year after the procedure, we have better outcomes with PCI,” compared with a meds-only strategy in patients with diabetes and stable CAD. “That really vindicates a lot of those who believe in PCI,” Dr. Farkouh said.
“What’s surprising to me is, if the patient has an LDL less than 70, why is it that there is a benefit of PCI, compared to medical therapy alone? Because they’re already so aggressively managed, you would think there shouldn’t be a benefit,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, New York University, said in an interview. “For me, that part is difficult to understand.”
The finding somewhat contradicts the results of ISCHEMIA, in which OMT – including LDL-C-lowering therapy – was considered more aggressive than usually managed in practice, Bangalore said. Yet the trial saw no outcomes difference between PCI and the more conservative approach, leading some to speculate that PCI may be a better choice when, for whatever reason, medical therapy isn’t optimal.
The observed superiority of PCI over meds-only at the lowest LDL-C levels is, according to Dr. Banagalore, “more likely because of residual confounding, given the fact that they’re combining three different trials, which are aimed to address different sets of questions.” He was an investigator with the FREEDOM and ISCHEMIA trials but isn’t associated with the current report.
The main message from this observational analysis is that “of course, we want to get the LDL as low as possible in these patients with demonstrated cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “Every one of these patients should be shooting for as low an LDL as possible.”
Regardless of revascularization strategy, he said, “we have to get people on a high-intensity statin, or at least their maximally targeted dose, and have a careful and thoughtful conversation about whether they need additional lowering with, perhaps, ezetimibe, if they’re not below the thresholds we’d like to see them at, in this case, 70 mg/dL.”
Still, the current findings that the relative effects of PCI and CABG in these patients may vary by degree of LDL-C reduction “are interesting, but would have to be tested a little bit more directly,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is not affiliated with the analysis.
An accompanying editorial, which also acknowledges the study’s limitations, says its results “are relevant for clinical practice and may pave the way toward the generation of novel personalized medicine models that can optimize care of patients with type-2 diabetes.”
They “support the concept of an individualized treatment strategy that accounts for a patient’s LDL-C level to estimate clinical outcomes and expected treatment effects after therapeutic interventions,” say the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
“For daily practice, these results also underscore the importance of follow-up LDL-C measurements, both as a risk stratifier and as an indicator for therapy adjustments,” they write, noting that “current guidelines provide no formal recommendation on when to check LDL-C after PCI.”
The meta-analysis followed a total of 4050 patients with diabetes and stable CAD from the three randomized trials, those with evaluable baseline and follow-up LDL-C measurements, for a median of 4 years after the 1-year LDL-C assessment. At that time, at least 90% of patients in each of the trials had statin prescriptions, the group reported.
At one year, 34.5% of the total cohort had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL; their mean was 55.8 mg/dL.
And 42.2% had an LDL-C from 70 mg/dL to <100 mg/dL; their mean was 83.4 mg/dL. Compared with patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, their adjusted hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not elevated at 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86-1.32, P = .54).
Finally, 23.2% had an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; the mean was 123.0 mg/dL. Compared with the group with the lowest 1-year LDL-C, their adjusted HR for MACCE was increased at 1.46 (95% CI, 1.15 - 1.85, P = .002).
That HR among the 42.3% of patients in the PCI cohort, compared with the 33.3% assigned to meds only, climbed significantly only among those in the lowest 1-year LDL-C stratum: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P = .016). Corresponding HRs in the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL strata were close to unity and nonsignificant at P = .71 and P = .98, respectively.
On the other hand, the 24.4% of patients assigned to CABG showed better MACCE outcomes than those in the meds-only group across all three 1-year LDL-C strata.
The risk of MACCE wasn’t significantly altered by CABG, compared with PCI among patients achieving a 1-year LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL. However, it fell by about one-half for CABG vs. PCI in both the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL-C strata, P = .003 and P = .022, respectively.
Dr. Bangalore said he’s entirely behind the results of the study’s comparison of PCI and CABG. “It’s exactly the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward, that if you want to achieve results as good as CABG, do PCI with aggressive medical therapy.” That means second-generation drug-eluting stents for the target lesions, “and aggressive medical therapy to address all of the nontarget lesions, specifically in diabetics.”
It’s possible, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, that there is “no longer a dichotomy between revascularization strategies,” with respect to clinical outcomes, in such patients who maintain an LDL less than 70 mg/dL, as the study suggests.
“But I wonder, if it had continued for another 4 years of follow-up, whether we would see the CABG patients start to have more events,” such that the CABG advantage goes away at higher LDL-C levels, he proposed.
Or, Dr. Lloyd-Jones speculated, if all patients had achieved LDL-C below 70 mg/dL, “would there be such a difference between the PCI and CABG groups? My bet would be that it would be small or abolished.”
Dr. Farkouh discloses receiving research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other study authors can be found with the original article. Editorialist Dr. Navarese discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants from Abbott and Amgen. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer vaccine data show 90% efficacy in early results
A vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 has been found to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus, results from an interim analysis of a phase 3 study demonstrated.
BTN162b2, a messenger RNA–based vaccine candidate that requires two doses, is being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech SE independently of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. A global phase 3 clinical trial of BTN162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date; 42% of enrollees have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.
According to a press release issued by the two companies, 38,955 trial volunteers had received a second dose of either vaccine or placebo as of Nov. 8. An interim analysis of 94 individuals conducted by an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) found that the vaccine efficacy rate was above 90% 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection was achieved 28 days after the first vaccine dose.
“It’s promising in that it validates the genetic strategy – whether it’s mRNA vaccines or DNA vaccines,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Offit is a member of the US Food and Drug Administraiton’s COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. “All of them have the same approach, which is that they introduce the gene that codes for the coronavirus spike protein into the cell. Your cell makes the spike protein, and your immune system makes antibodies to the spike protein. At least in these preliminary data, which involved 94 people getting sick, it looks like it’s effective. That’s good. We knew that it seemed to work in experimental animals, but you never know until you put it into people.”
According to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, a final data analysis is planned once 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. So far, the DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns. It recommends that the study continue to collect safety and efficacy data as planned. The companies plan to apply to the FDA for emergency use authorization soon after the required safety milestone is achieved.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, added in a separate press release, “It’s important to note that we cannot apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization based on these efficacy results alone. More data on safety is also needed, and we are continuing to accumulate that safety data as part of our ongoing clinical study.
“We estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second and final dose of the vaccine candidate – required by FDA’s guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November.”
Offit, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that, if BTN162b2 is approved, administering it will be tricky. “This particular vaccine has to be shipped and stored at –70° C or –80° C, which we’ve never done before in this country,” he said. “That means maintaining the product on dry ice. That’s going to be a challenge for distribution, I think.”
Good news, but…
In the press release, BioNTech SE’s cofounder and CEO, Ugur Sahin, MD, characterized the findings as “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort. When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality.”
President-elect Joe Biden also weighed in, calling the results “excellent news” in a news release.
“At the same time, it is also important to understand that the end of the battle against COVID-19 is still months away,” he said. “This news follows a previously announced timeline by industry officials that forecast vaccine approval by late November. Even if that is achieved, and some Americans are vaccinated later this year, it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country.
“Today’s news does not change this urgent reality. Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year,” Biden added.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 has been found to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus, results from an interim analysis of a phase 3 study demonstrated.
BTN162b2, a messenger RNA–based vaccine candidate that requires two doses, is being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech SE independently of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. A global phase 3 clinical trial of BTN162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date; 42% of enrollees have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.
According to a press release issued by the two companies, 38,955 trial volunteers had received a second dose of either vaccine or placebo as of Nov. 8. An interim analysis of 94 individuals conducted by an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) found that the vaccine efficacy rate was above 90% 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection was achieved 28 days after the first vaccine dose.
“It’s promising in that it validates the genetic strategy – whether it’s mRNA vaccines or DNA vaccines,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Offit is a member of the US Food and Drug Administraiton’s COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. “All of them have the same approach, which is that they introduce the gene that codes for the coronavirus spike protein into the cell. Your cell makes the spike protein, and your immune system makes antibodies to the spike protein. At least in these preliminary data, which involved 94 people getting sick, it looks like it’s effective. That’s good. We knew that it seemed to work in experimental animals, but you never know until you put it into people.”
According to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, a final data analysis is planned once 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. So far, the DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns. It recommends that the study continue to collect safety and efficacy data as planned. The companies plan to apply to the FDA for emergency use authorization soon after the required safety milestone is achieved.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, added in a separate press release, “It’s important to note that we cannot apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization based on these efficacy results alone. More data on safety is also needed, and we are continuing to accumulate that safety data as part of our ongoing clinical study.
“We estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second and final dose of the vaccine candidate – required by FDA’s guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November.”
Offit, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that, if BTN162b2 is approved, administering it will be tricky. “This particular vaccine has to be shipped and stored at –70° C or –80° C, which we’ve never done before in this country,” he said. “That means maintaining the product on dry ice. That’s going to be a challenge for distribution, I think.”
Good news, but…
In the press release, BioNTech SE’s cofounder and CEO, Ugur Sahin, MD, characterized the findings as “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort. When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality.”
President-elect Joe Biden also weighed in, calling the results “excellent news” in a news release.
“At the same time, it is also important to understand that the end of the battle against COVID-19 is still months away,” he said. “This news follows a previously announced timeline by industry officials that forecast vaccine approval by late November. Even if that is achieved, and some Americans are vaccinated later this year, it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country.
“Today’s news does not change this urgent reality. Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year,” Biden added.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 has been found to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus, results from an interim analysis of a phase 3 study demonstrated.
BTN162b2, a messenger RNA–based vaccine candidate that requires two doses, is being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech SE independently of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed. A global phase 3 clinical trial of BTN162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,538 participants to date; 42% of enrollees have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.
According to a press release issued by the two companies, 38,955 trial volunteers had received a second dose of either vaccine or placebo as of Nov. 8. An interim analysis of 94 individuals conducted by an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) found that the vaccine efficacy rate was above 90% 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection was achieved 28 days after the first vaccine dose.
“It’s promising in that it validates the genetic strategy – whether it’s mRNA vaccines or DNA vaccines,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Offit is a member of the US Food and Drug Administraiton’s COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. “All of them have the same approach, which is that they introduce the gene that codes for the coronavirus spike protein into the cell. Your cell makes the spike protein, and your immune system makes antibodies to the spike protein. At least in these preliminary data, which involved 94 people getting sick, it looks like it’s effective. That’s good. We knew that it seemed to work in experimental animals, but you never know until you put it into people.”
According to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, a final data analysis is planned once 164 confirmed COVID-19 cases have accrued. So far, the DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns. It recommends that the study continue to collect safety and efficacy data as planned. The companies plan to apply to the FDA for emergency use authorization soon after the required safety milestone is achieved.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, added in a separate press release, “It’s important to note that we cannot apply for FDA Emergency Use Authorization based on these efficacy results alone. More data on safety is also needed, and we are continuing to accumulate that safety data as part of our ongoing clinical study.
“We estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second and final dose of the vaccine candidate – required by FDA’s guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November.”
Offit, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that, if BTN162b2 is approved, administering it will be tricky. “This particular vaccine has to be shipped and stored at –70° C or –80° C, which we’ve never done before in this country,” he said. “That means maintaining the product on dry ice. That’s going to be a challenge for distribution, I think.”
Good news, but…
In the press release, BioNTech SE’s cofounder and CEO, Ugur Sahin, MD, characterized the findings as “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort. When we embarked on this journey 10 months ago this is what we aspired to achieve. Especially today, while we are all in the midst of a second wave and many of us in lockdown, we appreciate even more how important this milestone is on our path towards ending this pandemic and for all of us to regain a sense of normality.”
President-elect Joe Biden also weighed in, calling the results “excellent news” in a news release.
“At the same time, it is also important to understand that the end of the battle against COVID-19 is still months away,” he said. “This news follows a previously announced timeline by industry officials that forecast vaccine approval by late November. Even if that is achieved, and some Americans are vaccinated later this year, it will be many more months before there is widespread vaccination in this country.
“Today’s news does not change this urgent reality. Americans will have to rely on masking, distancing, contact tracing, hand washing, and other measures to keep themselves safe well into next year,” Biden added.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What to know as ACA heads to Supreme Court – again
The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.
After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.
Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?
There is a long list of ways this could play out.
The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.
First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.
The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.
Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.
It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.
Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.
Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.
While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?
Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.
But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?
Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.
Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.
“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?
The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”
As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”
If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.
After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.
Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?
There is a long list of ways this could play out.
The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.
First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.
The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.
Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.
It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.
Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.
Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.
While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?
Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.
But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?
Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.
Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.
“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?
The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”
As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”
If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.
After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.
Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?
There is a long list of ways this could play out.
The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.
First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.
The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.
Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.
It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.
Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.
Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.
While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?
Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.
But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?
Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.
Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.
“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?
The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”
As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”
If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
COVID-19 risks in rheumatic disease remain unclear
ACR 2020 studies offer conflicting findings.
Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.
When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.
Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.
“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”
At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.
Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.
Elevated risks in match-controlled study
Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.
Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).
Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).
When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”
When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.
When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”
The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
Lower risks emerge in systematic review
The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.
“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.
Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
Different calculations of risk
The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.
“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.
“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.
The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.
SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.
ACR 2020 studies offer conflicting findings.
ACR 2020 studies offer conflicting findings.
Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.
When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.
Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.
“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”
At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.
Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.
Elevated risks in match-controlled study
Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.
Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).
Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).
When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”
When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.
When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”
The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
Lower risks emerge in systematic review
The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.
“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.
Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
Different calculations of risk
The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.
“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.
“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.
The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.
SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.
Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.
When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.
Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.
“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”
At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.
Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.
Elevated risks in match-controlled study
Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.
Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).
Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).
When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”
When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.
When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”
The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
Lower risks emerge in systematic review
The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.
“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.
Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
Different calculations of risk
The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.
“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.
“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.
The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.
SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.
FROM ACR 2020