MDedge Emergency Medicine

The DAPA-CKD trial results, which proved dapagliflozin’s efficacy for slowing chronic kidney disease progression in patients selected for signs of worsening renal function, also have important messages for cardiologists, especially heart failure physicians.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Those messages include findings that were “consistent” with the results of the earlier DAPA-HF trial, which tested the same sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients selected for having heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition, a specific action of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on the patients in DAPA-CKD, which enrolled patients based on markers of chronic kidney disease (CKD), was prevention of first and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, further highlighting the role that dapagliflozin has in reducing both heart failure and renal events.
 

What DAPA-CKD means for heart failure

The main findings from the DAPA-CKD trial, published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine, included as a secondary outcome the combined rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Treatment with dapagliflozin linked with a significant 29% relative reduction in this endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients. At the HFSA meeting, Dr. McMurray reported for the first time the specific HHF numbers, a prespecified secondary endpoint for the study.

Patients on dapagliflozin had 37 total HHF events (1.7%), including both first-time and subsequent hospitalizations, while patients in the placebo arm had a total of 71 HHF events (3.3%) during the study’s median 2.4 years of follow-up, an absolute reduction of 1.6% that translated into a relative risk reduction of 49%.

The HHF findings from DAPA-CKD importantly showed that SGLT2 inhibition in patients with signs of renal dysfunction “will not only slow progression of kidney disease but will also reduce the risk of developing heart failure, crucially in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” explained Dr. McMurray in an interview. “Cardiologists often consult in the kidney wards and advise on management of patients with chronic kidney disease, even those without heart failure.”

The DAPA-CKD findings carry another important message for heart failure management regarding the minimum level of renal function a patient can have and still safely receive dapagliflozin or possibly another agent from the same SGLT2 inhibitor class. In DAPA-CKD, patients safely received dapagliflozin with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m²; 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“Typically, about 40%-50% of patients with heart failure have chronic kidney disease,” which makes this safety finding important to clinicians who care for heart failure patients, but it’s also important for any patient who might be a candidate for dapagliflozin or another drug from its class. “We had no strong evidence before this trial that SGLT2 inhibition could reduce hard renal endpoints,” specifically need for chronic dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death, “in patients with or without diabetes,” Dr. McMurray said.
 

DAPA-CKD grows the pool of eligible heart failure patients

A further consequence of the DAPA-CKD findings is that when, as expected, regulatory bodies give dapagliflozin an indication for treating the types of CKD patients enrolled in the trial, it will functionally expand this treatment to an even larger swath of heart failure patients who currently don’t qualify for this treatment, specifically patients with CKD who also have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). On Oct. 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked dapagliflozin for the CKD indication by granting it Breakthrough Therapy Designation based on the DAPA-CKD results.

Results first reported in 2019 from the DAPA-HF trial led to dapagliflozin receiving a labeled indication for treating HFrEF, the types of heart failure patients enrolled in the trial. Direct evidence on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFpEF will not be available until results from a few trials now in progress become available during the next 12 months.

In the meantime, nearly half of patients with HFpEF also have CKD, noted Dr. McMurray, and another large portion of HFpEF patients have type 2 diabetes and hence qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment that way. “Obviously, we would like to know specifically about heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF” on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he acknowledged. But the recent approval of dapagliflozin for patients with HFrEF and the likely indication coming soon for treating CKD means that the number of patients with heart failure who are not eligible for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is dwindling down to some extent.
 

New DAPA-HF results show no drug, device interactions

In a separate session at the HFSA virtual meeting, Dr. McMurray and several collaborators on the DAPA-HF trial presented results from some new analyses. Dr. McMurray looked at the impact of dapagliflozin treatment on the primary endpoint when patients were stratified by the diuretic dosage they received at study entry. The results showed that “the benefits from dapagliflozin were irrespective of the use of background diuretic therapy or the diuretic dose,” he reported. Study findings also showed that roughly three-quarters of patients in the study had no change in their diuretic dosage during the course of the trial, that the fraction of patients who had an increase in their dosage was about the same as those whose diuretic dosage decreased, and that this pattern was similar in both the patients on dapagliflozin and in those randomized to placebo.

Another set of new analyses from DAPA-HF looked at the impact on dapagliflozin efficacy of background medical and device therapies for heart failure, as well as background diabetes therapies. The findings showed no signal of an interaction with background therapies. “The effects of dapagliflozin are incremental and complimentary to conventional therapies for HFrEF,” concluded Lars Kober, MD, a professor and heart failure physician at Copenhagen University Hospital.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. McMurray’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from AstraZeneca and several other companies to compensate for his time overseeing various clinical trials. Dr. Kober has received honoraria for speaking on behalf of several companies including AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

The DAPA-CKD trial results, which proved dapagliflozin’s efficacy for slowing chronic kidney disease progression in patients selected for signs of worsening renal function, also have important messages for cardiologists, especially heart failure physicians.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Those messages include findings that were “consistent” with the results of the earlier DAPA-HF trial, which tested the same sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients selected for having heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition, a specific action of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on the patients in DAPA-CKD, which enrolled patients based on markers of chronic kidney disease (CKD), was prevention of first and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, further highlighting the role that dapagliflozin has in reducing both heart failure and renal events.
 

What DAPA-CKD means for heart failure

The main findings from the DAPA-CKD trial, published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine, included as a secondary outcome the combined rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Treatment with dapagliflozin linked with a significant 29% relative reduction in this endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients. At the HFSA meeting, Dr. McMurray reported for the first time the specific HHF numbers, a prespecified secondary endpoint for the study.

Patients on dapagliflozin had 37 total HHF events (1.7%), including both first-time and subsequent hospitalizations, while patients in the placebo arm had a total of 71 HHF events (3.3%) during the study’s median 2.4 years of follow-up, an absolute reduction of 1.6% that translated into a relative risk reduction of 49%.

The HHF findings from DAPA-CKD importantly showed that SGLT2 inhibition in patients with signs of renal dysfunction “will not only slow progression of kidney disease but will also reduce the risk of developing heart failure, crucially in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” explained Dr. McMurray in an interview. “Cardiologists often consult in the kidney wards and advise on management of patients with chronic kidney disease, even those without heart failure.”

The DAPA-CKD findings carry another important message for heart failure management regarding the minimum level of renal function a patient can have and still safely receive dapagliflozin or possibly another agent from the same SGLT2 inhibitor class. In DAPA-CKD, patients safely received dapagliflozin with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m²; 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“Typically, about 40%-50% of patients with heart failure have chronic kidney disease,” which makes this safety finding important to clinicians who care for heart failure patients, but it’s also important for any patient who might be a candidate for dapagliflozin or another drug from its class. “We had no strong evidence before this trial that SGLT2 inhibition could reduce hard renal endpoints,” specifically need for chronic dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death, “in patients with or without diabetes,” Dr. McMurray said.
 

DAPA-CKD grows the pool of eligible heart failure patients

A further consequence of the DAPA-CKD findings is that when, as expected, regulatory bodies give dapagliflozin an indication for treating the types of CKD patients enrolled in the trial, it will functionally expand this treatment to an even larger swath of heart failure patients who currently don’t qualify for this treatment, specifically patients with CKD who also have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). On Oct. 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked dapagliflozin for the CKD indication by granting it Breakthrough Therapy Designation based on the DAPA-CKD results.

Results first reported in 2019 from the DAPA-HF trial led to dapagliflozin receiving a labeled indication for treating HFrEF, the types of heart failure patients enrolled in the trial. Direct evidence on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFpEF will not be available until results from a few trials now in progress become available during the next 12 months.

In the meantime, nearly half of patients with HFpEF also have CKD, noted Dr. McMurray, and another large portion of HFpEF patients have type 2 diabetes and hence qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment that way. “Obviously, we would like to know specifically about heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF” on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he acknowledged. But the recent approval of dapagliflozin for patients with HFrEF and the likely indication coming soon for treating CKD means that the number of patients with heart failure who are not eligible for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is dwindling down to some extent.
 

New DAPA-HF results show no drug, device interactions

In a separate session at the HFSA virtual meeting, Dr. McMurray and several collaborators on the DAPA-HF trial presented results from some new analyses. Dr. McMurray looked at the impact of dapagliflozin treatment on the primary endpoint when patients were stratified by the diuretic dosage they received at study entry. The results showed that “the benefits from dapagliflozin were irrespective of the use of background diuretic therapy or the diuretic dose,” he reported. Study findings also showed that roughly three-quarters of patients in the study had no change in their diuretic dosage during the course of the trial, that the fraction of patients who had an increase in their dosage was about the same as those whose diuretic dosage decreased, and that this pattern was similar in both the patients on dapagliflozin and in those randomized to placebo.

Another set of new analyses from DAPA-HF looked at the impact on dapagliflozin efficacy of background medical and device therapies for heart failure, as well as background diabetes therapies. The findings showed no signal of an interaction with background therapies. “The effects of dapagliflozin are incremental and complimentary to conventional therapies for HFrEF,” concluded Lars Kober, MD, a professor and heart failure physician at Copenhagen University Hospital.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. McMurray’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from AstraZeneca and several other companies to compensate for his time overseeing various clinical trials. Dr. Kober has received honoraria for speaking on behalf of several companies including AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

The DAPA-CKD trial results, which proved dapagliflozin’s efficacy for slowing chronic kidney disease progression in patients selected for signs of worsening renal function, also have important messages for cardiologists, especially heart failure physicians.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Those messages include findings that were “consistent” with the results of the earlier DAPA-HF trial, which tested the same sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients selected for having heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition, a specific action of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on the patients in DAPA-CKD, which enrolled patients based on markers of chronic kidney disease (CKD), was prevention of first and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, further highlighting the role that dapagliflozin has in reducing both heart failure and renal events.
 

What DAPA-CKD means for heart failure

The main findings from the DAPA-CKD trial, published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine, included as a secondary outcome the combined rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Treatment with dapagliflozin linked with a significant 29% relative reduction in this endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients. At the HFSA meeting, Dr. McMurray reported for the first time the specific HHF numbers, a prespecified secondary endpoint for the study.

Patients on dapagliflozin had 37 total HHF events (1.7%), including both first-time and subsequent hospitalizations, while patients in the placebo arm had a total of 71 HHF events (3.3%) during the study’s median 2.4 years of follow-up, an absolute reduction of 1.6% that translated into a relative risk reduction of 49%.

The HHF findings from DAPA-CKD importantly showed that SGLT2 inhibition in patients with signs of renal dysfunction “will not only slow progression of kidney disease but will also reduce the risk of developing heart failure, crucially in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” explained Dr. McMurray in an interview. “Cardiologists often consult in the kidney wards and advise on management of patients with chronic kidney disease, even those without heart failure.”

The DAPA-CKD findings carry another important message for heart failure management regarding the minimum level of renal function a patient can have and still safely receive dapagliflozin or possibly another agent from the same SGLT2 inhibitor class. In DAPA-CKD, patients safely received dapagliflozin with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m²; 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“Typically, about 40%-50% of patients with heart failure have chronic kidney disease,” which makes this safety finding important to clinicians who care for heart failure patients, but it’s also important for any patient who might be a candidate for dapagliflozin or another drug from its class. “We had no strong evidence before this trial that SGLT2 inhibition could reduce hard renal endpoints,” specifically need for chronic dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death, “in patients with or without diabetes,” Dr. McMurray said.
 

DAPA-CKD grows the pool of eligible heart failure patients

A further consequence of the DAPA-CKD findings is that when, as expected, regulatory bodies give dapagliflozin an indication for treating the types of CKD patients enrolled in the trial, it will functionally expand this treatment to an even larger swath of heart failure patients who currently don’t qualify for this treatment, specifically patients with CKD who also have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). On Oct. 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked dapagliflozin for the CKD indication by granting it Breakthrough Therapy Designation based on the DAPA-CKD results.

Results first reported in 2019 from the DAPA-HF trial led to dapagliflozin receiving a labeled indication for treating HFrEF, the types of heart failure patients enrolled in the trial. Direct evidence on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFpEF will not be available until results from a few trials now in progress become available during the next 12 months.

In the meantime, nearly half of patients with HFpEF also have CKD, noted Dr. McMurray, and another large portion of HFpEF patients have type 2 diabetes and hence qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment that way. “Obviously, we would like to know specifically about heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF” on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he acknowledged. But the recent approval of dapagliflozin for patients with HFrEF and the likely indication coming soon for treating CKD means that the number of patients with heart failure who are not eligible for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is dwindling down to some extent.
 

New DAPA-HF results show no drug, device interactions

In a separate session at the HFSA virtual meeting, Dr. McMurray and several collaborators on the DAPA-HF trial presented results from some new analyses. Dr. McMurray looked at the impact of dapagliflozin treatment on the primary endpoint when patients were stratified by the diuretic dosage they received at study entry. The results showed that “the benefits from dapagliflozin were irrespective of the use of background diuretic therapy or the diuretic dose,” he reported. Study findings also showed that roughly three-quarters of patients in the study had no change in their diuretic dosage during the course of the trial, that the fraction of patients who had an increase in their dosage was about the same as those whose diuretic dosage decreased, and that this pattern was similar in both the patients on dapagliflozin and in those randomized to placebo.

Another set of new analyses from DAPA-HF looked at the impact on dapagliflozin efficacy of background medical and device therapies for heart failure, as well as background diabetes therapies. The findings showed no signal of an interaction with background therapies. “The effects of dapagliflozin are incremental and complimentary to conventional therapies for HFrEF,” concluded Lars Kober, MD, a professor and heart failure physician at Copenhagen University Hospital.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. McMurray’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from AstraZeneca and several other companies to compensate for his time overseeing various clinical trials. Dr. Kober has received honoraria for speaking on behalf of several companies including AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.

Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Negative impact

“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.

“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.

The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .

Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. The patients with psychiatric disorders were significantly older and were more likely to be women, White, non-Hispanic, and to have medical comorbidities (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).

Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
 

Vulnerability to stress

In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).

In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).

Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.

Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
 

Quality care

Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”

The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.

Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.

“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.

No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.

A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.

Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Negative impact

“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.

“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.

The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .

Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. The patients with psychiatric disorders were significantly older and were more likely to be women, White, non-Hispanic, and to have medical comorbidities (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).

Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
 

Vulnerability to stress

In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).

In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).

Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.

Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
 

Quality care

Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”

The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.

Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.

“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.

No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.

A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.

Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Negative impact

“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.

“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.

The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .

Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. The patients with psychiatric disorders were significantly older and were more likely to be women, White, non-Hispanic, and to have medical comorbidities (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).

Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
 

Vulnerability to stress

In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).

In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).

Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.

Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
 

Quality care

Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”

The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.

Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.

“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.

No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.

U.S. regulators eventually could safely approve vaccines for COVID-19 if the process is kept free of political pressure regarding time lines, study protocols, and safety standards, expert witnesses told a House panel investigating the process on Wednesday.

The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.

FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.

“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.

“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”

Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.

“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.

President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.

Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.

In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
 

Pushback on politics

Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.

“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”

Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.

Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.

Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.

“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.

Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.

“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.

Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.

COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.

Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
 

Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness

In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”

There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.

“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.

“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.

“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”

But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.

He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.

“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators eventually could safely approve vaccines for COVID-19 if the process is kept free of political pressure regarding time lines, study protocols, and safety standards, expert witnesses told a House panel investigating the process on Wednesday.

The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.

FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.

“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.

“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”

Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.

“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.

President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.

Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.

In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
 

Pushback on politics

Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.

“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”

Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.

Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.

Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.

“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.

Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.

“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.

Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.

COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.

Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
 

Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness

In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”

There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.

“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.

“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.

“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”

But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.

He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.

“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators eventually could safely approve vaccines for COVID-19 if the process is kept free of political pressure regarding time lines, study protocols, and safety standards, expert witnesses told a House panel investigating the process on Wednesday.

The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.

FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.

“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.

“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”

Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.

“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.

President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.

Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.

In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
 

Pushback on politics

Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.

“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”

Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.

Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.

Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.

“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.

Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.

“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.

Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.

COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.

Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
 

Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness

In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”

There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.

“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.

“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.

“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”

But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.

He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.

“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among COVID-19 patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, lying in the prone position has been associated with lasting nerve damage. A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.

“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
 

Unique type of nerve injury

Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.

“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.

With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.

Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”

Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.

The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.

The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
 

A major contributor

Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”

“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.

“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.

The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.

“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.

Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.

Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.

Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.

“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.

The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
 

Irreversible damage?

Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among COVID-19 patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, lying in the prone position has been associated with lasting nerve damage. A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.

“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
 

Unique type of nerve injury

Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.

“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.

With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.

Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”

Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.

The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.

The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
 

A major contributor

Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”

“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.

“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.

The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.

“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.

Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.

Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.

Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.

“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.

The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
 

Irreversible damage?

Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among COVID-19 patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, lying in the prone position has been associated with lasting nerve damage. A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.

“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
 

Unique type of nerve injury

Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.

“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.

With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.

Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”

Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.

The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.

The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
 

A major contributor

Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”

“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.

“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.

The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.

“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.

Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.

Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.

Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.

“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.

The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
 

Irreversible damage?

Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.

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

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

I have been in practice for 31 years, so many of my patients are now in their 80s and 90s. Practices age with us, and I have been seeing many of these patients for 25-30 years. I have three rules I try to encourage my elderly patients follow, and I wanted to share them with you.

Absolutely, positively make sure you move!

Our older patients often have many reasons not to move, including pain from arthritis, deconditioning, muscle weakness, fatigue, and depression. “Keeping moving” is probably the most important thing a patient can do for their health.

Holme and Anderssen studied a large cohort of men for cardiovascular risk in 1972 and again in 2000. The surviving men were followed over an additional 12 years.¹ They found that 30 minutes of physical activity 6 days a week was associated with a 40% reduction in mortality. Sedentary men had a reduced life expectancy of about 5 years, compared with men who were moderately to vigorously physically active.

Stewart etal. studied the benefit of physical activity in people with stable coronary disease.² They concluded that, in patients with stable coronary heart disease, more physical activity was associated with lower mortality, and the largest benefit occurred in the sedentary patient groups and the highest cardiac risk groups.

Saint-Maurice et al. studied the effects of total daily step count and step intensity on mortality risk.³ They found that the risk of all-cause mortality decreases as the total number of daily steps increases, but that the speed of those steps did not make a difference. This is very encouraging data for our elderly patients. Moving is the secret, even if it may not be moving at a fast pace!
 

Never, ever get on a ladder!

This one should be part of every geriatric’s assessment and every Medicare wellness exam. I first experienced the horror of what can happen when elderly people climb when a 96-year-old healthy patient of mine fell off his roof and died. I never thought to tell him climbing on the roof was an awful idea.

Akland et al. looked at the epidemiology and outcomes of ladder-related falls that required ICU admission.⁴ Hospital mortality was 26%, and almost all of the mortalities occurred in older males in domestic falls, who died as a result of traumatic brain injury. Fewer than half of the survivors were living independently 1 year after the fall.

Valmuur et al. studied ladder related falls in Australia.⁵ They found that rates of ladder related falls requiring hospitalization rose from about 20/100,000 for men ages 15-29 years to 78/100,000 for men aged over 60 years. Of those who died from fall-related injury, 82% were over the age of 60, with more than 70% dying from head injuries.

Schaffarczyk et al. looked at the impact of nonoccupational falls from ladders in men aged over 50 years.⁶ The mean age of the patients in the study was 64 years (range, 50-85), with 27% suffering severe trauma. There was a striking impact on long-term function occurring in over half the study patients. The authors did interviews with patients in follow-up long after the falls and found that most never thought of themselves at risk for a fall, and after the experience of a bad fall, would never consider going on a ladder again. I think it is important for health care professionals to discuss the dangers of ladder use with our older patients, pointing out the higher risk of falling and the potential for the fall to be a life-changing or life-ending event.
 

Let them eat!

Many patients have a reduced appetite as they age. We work hard with our patients to choose a healthy diet throughout their lives, to help ward off obesity, treat hypertension, prevent or control diabetes, or provide heart health. Many patients just stop being interested in food, reduce intake, and may lose weight and muscle mass. When my patients pass the age of 85, I change my focus to encouraging them to eat for calories, socialization, and joy. I think the marginal benefits of more restrictive diets are small, compared with the benefits of helping your patients enjoy eating again. I ask patients what their very favorite foods are and encourage them to have them.

Pearl

Keep your patients eating and moving, except not onto a ladder!

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Holme I, Anderssen SA. Increases in physical activity is as important as smoking cessation for reduction in total mortality in elderly men: 12 years of follow-up of the Oslo II study. Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49:743-8.

2. Stewart RAH et al. Physical activity and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Oct 3;70(14):1689-1700..

3. Saint-Maurice PF et al. Association of daily step count and step intensity with mortality among U.S. adults. JAMA 2020;323:1151-60.

4. Ackland HM et al. Danger at every rung: Epidemiology and outcomes of ICU-admitted ladder-related trauma. Injury. 2016;47:1109-117.

5. Vallmuur K et al. Falls from ladders in Australia: comparing occupational and nonoccupational injuries across age groups. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Dec;40(6):559-63.

6. Schaffarczyk K et al. Nonoccupational falls from ladders in men 50 years and over: Contributing factors and impact. Injury. 2020 Aug;51(8):1798-1804.

I have been in practice for 31 years, so many of my patients are now in their 80s and 90s. Practices age with us, and I have been seeing many of these patients for 25-30 years. I have three rules I try to encourage my elderly patients follow, and I wanted to share them with you.

Absolutely, positively make sure you move!

Our older patients often have many reasons not to move, including pain from arthritis, deconditioning, muscle weakness, fatigue, and depression. “Keeping moving” is probably the most important thing a patient can do for their health.

Holme and Anderssen studied a large cohort of men for cardiovascular risk in 1972 and again in 2000. The surviving men were followed over an additional 12 years.¹ They found that 30 minutes of physical activity 6 days a week was associated with a 40% reduction in mortality. Sedentary men had a reduced life expectancy of about 5 years, compared with men who were moderately to vigorously physically active.

Stewart etal. studied the benefit of physical activity in people with stable coronary disease.² They concluded that, in patients with stable coronary heart disease, more physical activity was associated with lower mortality, and the largest benefit occurred in the sedentary patient groups and the highest cardiac risk groups.

Saint-Maurice et al. studied the effects of total daily step count and step intensity on mortality risk.³ They found that the risk of all-cause mortality decreases as the total number of daily steps increases, but that the speed of those steps did not make a difference. This is very encouraging data for our elderly patients. Moving is the secret, even if it may not be moving at a fast pace!
 

Never, ever get on a ladder!

This one should be part of every geriatric’s assessment and every Medicare wellness exam. I first experienced the horror of what can happen when elderly people climb when a 96-year-old healthy patient of mine fell off his roof and died. I never thought to tell him climbing on the roof was an awful idea.

Akland et al. looked at the epidemiology and outcomes of ladder-related falls that required ICU admission.⁴ Hospital mortality was 26%, and almost all of the mortalities occurred in older males in domestic falls, who died as a result of traumatic brain injury. Fewer than half of the survivors were living independently 1 year after the fall.

Valmuur et al. studied ladder related falls in Australia.⁵ They found that rates of ladder related falls requiring hospitalization rose from about 20/100,000 for men ages 15-29 years to 78/100,000 for men aged over 60 years. Of those who died from fall-related injury, 82% were over the age of 60, with more than 70% dying from head injuries.

Schaffarczyk et al. looked at the impact of nonoccupational falls from ladders in men aged over 50 years.⁶ The mean age of the patients in the study was 64 years (range, 50-85), with 27% suffering severe trauma. There was a striking impact on long-term function occurring in over half the study patients. The authors did interviews with patients in follow-up long after the falls and found that most never thought of themselves at risk for a fall, and after the experience of a bad fall, would never consider going on a ladder again. I think it is important for health care professionals to discuss the dangers of ladder use with our older patients, pointing out the higher risk of falling and the potential for the fall to be a life-changing or life-ending event.
 

Let them eat!

Many patients have a reduced appetite as they age. We work hard with our patients to choose a healthy diet throughout their lives, to help ward off obesity, treat hypertension, prevent or control diabetes, or provide heart health. Many patients just stop being interested in food, reduce intake, and may lose weight and muscle mass. When my patients pass the age of 85, I change my focus to encouraging them to eat for calories, socialization, and joy. I think the marginal benefits of more restrictive diets are small, compared with the benefits of helping your patients enjoy eating again. I ask patients what their very favorite foods are and encourage them to have them.

Pearl

Keep your patients eating and moving, except not onto a ladder!

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Holme I, Anderssen SA. Increases in physical activity is as important as smoking cessation for reduction in total mortality in elderly men: 12 years of follow-up of the Oslo II study. Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49:743-8.

2. Stewart RAH et al. Physical activity and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Oct 3;70(14):1689-1700..

3. Saint-Maurice PF et al. Association of daily step count and step intensity with mortality among U.S. adults. JAMA 2020;323:1151-60.

4. Ackland HM et al. Danger at every rung: Epidemiology and outcomes of ICU-admitted ladder-related trauma. Injury. 2016;47:1109-117.

5. Vallmuur K et al. Falls from ladders in Australia: comparing occupational and nonoccupational injuries across age groups. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Dec;40(6):559-63.

6. Schaffarczyk K et al. Nonoccupational falls from ladders in men 50 years and over: Contributing factors and impact. Injury. 2020 Aug;51(8):1798-1804.

I have been in practice for 31 years, so many of my patients are now in their 80s and 90s. Practices age with us, and I have been seeing many of these patients for 25-30 years. I have three rules I try to encourage my elderly patients follow, and I wanted to share them with you.

Absolutely, positively make sure you move!

Our older patients often have many reasons not to move, including pain from arthritis, deconditioning, muscle weakness, fatigue, and depression. “Keeping moving” is probably the most important thing a patient can do for their health.

Holme and Anderssen studied a large cohort of men for cardiovascular risk in 1972 and again in 2000. The surviving men were followed over an additional 12 years.¹ They found that 30 minutes of physical activity 6 days a week was associated with a 40% reduction in mortality. Sedentary men had a reduced life expectancy of about 5 years, compared with men who were moderately to vigorously physically active.

Stewart etal. studied the benefit of physical activity in people with stable coronary disease.² They concluded that, in patients with stable coronary heart disease, more physical activity was associated with lower mortality, and the largest benefit occurred in the sedentary patient groups and the highest cardiac risk groups.

Saint-Maurice et al. studied the effects of total daily step count and step intensity on mortality risk.³ They found that the risk of all-cause mortality decreases as the total number of daily steps increases, but that the speed of those steps did not make a difference. This is very encouraging data for our elderly patients. Moving is the secret, even if it may not be moving at a fast pace!
 

Never, ever get on a ladder!

This one should be part of every geriatric’s assessment and every Medicare wellness exam. I first experienced the horror of what can happen when elderly people climb when a 96-year-old healthy patient of mine fell off his roof and died. I never thought to tell him climbing on the roof was an awful idea.

Akland et al. looked at the epidemiology and outcomes of ladder-related falls that required ICU admission.⁴ Hospital mortality was 26%, and almost all of the mortalities occurred in older males in domestic falls, who died as a result of traumatic brain injury. Fewer than half of the survivors were living independently 1 year after the fall.

Valmuur et al. studied ladder related falls in Australia.⁵ They found that rates of ladder related falls requiring hospitalization rose from about 20/100,000 for men ages 15-29 years to 78/100,000 for men aged over 60 years. Of those who died from fall-related injury, 82% were over the age of 60, with more than 70% dying from head injuries.

Schaffarczyk et al. looked at the impact of nonoccupational falls from ladders in men aged over 50 years.⁶ The mean age of the patients in the study was 64 years (range, 50-85), with 27% suffering severe trauma. There was a striking impact on long-term function occurring in over half the study patients. The authors did interviews with patients in follow-up long after the falls and found that most never thought of themselves at risk for a fall, and after the experience of a bad fall, would never consider going on a ladder again. I think it is important for health care professionals to discuss the dangers of ladder use with our older patients, pointing out the higher risk of falling and the potential for the fall to be a life-changing or life-ending event.
 

Let them eat!

Many patients have a reduced appetite as they age. We work hard with our patients to choose a healthy diet throughout their lives, to help ward off obesity, treat hypertension, prevent or control diabetes, or provide heart health. Many patients just stop being interested in food, reduce intake, and may lose weight and muscle mass. When my patients pass the age of 85, I change my focus to encouraging them to eat for calories, socialization, and joy. I think the marginal benefits of more restrictive diets are small, compared with the benefits of helping your patients enjoy eating again. I ask patients what their very favorite foods are and encourage them to have them.

Pearl

Keep your patients eating and moving, except not onto a ladder!

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Holme I, Anderssen SA. Increases in physical activity is as important as smoking cessation for reduction in total mortality in elderly men: 12 years of follow-up of the Oslo II study. Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49:743-8.

2. Stewart RAH et al. Physical activity and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Oct 3;70(14):1689-1700..

3. Saint-Maurice PF et al. Association of daily step count and step intensity with mortality among U.S. adults. JAMA 2020;323:1151-60.

4. Ackland HM et al. Danger at every rung: Epidemiology and outcomes of ICU-admitted ladder-related trauma. Injury. 2016;47:1109-117.

5. Vallmuur K et al. Falls from ladders in Australia: comparing occupational and nonoccupational injuries across age groups. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Dec;40(6):559-63.

6. Schaffarczyk K et al. Nonoccupational falls from ladders in men 50 years and over: Contributing factors and impact. Injury. 2020 Aug;51(8):1798-1804.

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The cumulative percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in children continues to climb, but “the history behind that cumulative number shows substantial change,” according to a new analysis of state health department data.

As of Sept. 10, the 549,432 cases in children represented 10.0% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the United States following a substantial rise over the course of the pandemic – the figure was 7.7% on July 16 and 3.2% on May 7, Blake Sisk, PhD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics and associates reported Sept. 29 in Pediatrics.

Unlike the cumulative number, the weekly proportion of cases in children fell early in the summer but then started climbing again in late July. “In the last 8 weeks, children represented between 12%-15.9% of new weekly reported cases,” Dr. Sisk and associates wrote.

Despite the increase, however, the proportion of pediatric COVID-19 cases is still well below children’s share of the overall population (22.6%). Also, “it is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity, although CDC data from public and commercial laboratories show the share of all tests administered to children ages 0-17 has remained stable at 5%-7% since late April,” they said.

Data for the current report were drawn from 49 state health department websites (New York state does not report ages for COVID-19 cases), along with New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Alabama changed its definition of a child case in August and was not included in the trend analysis (see graph), the investigators explained.

Those data show “substantial variation in case growth by region: in April, a preponderance of cases was in the Northeast. In June, cases surged in the South and West, followed by mid-July increases in the Midwest,” Dr. Sisk and associates said.

The increase among children in Midwest states is ongoing with the number of new cases reaching its highest level yet during the week ending Sept. 10, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sisk B et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 29. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-027425.

The cumulative percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in children continues to climb, but “the history behind that cumulative number shows substantial change,” according to a new analysis of state health department data.

As of Sept. 10, the 549,432 cases in children represented 10.0% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the United States following a substantial rise over the course of the pandemic – the figure was 7.7% on July 16 and 3.2% on May 7, Blake Sisk, PhD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics and associates reported Sept. 29 in Pediatrics.

Unlike the cumulative number, the weekly proportion of cases in children fell early in the summer but then started climbing again in late July. “In the last 8 weeks, children represented between 12%-15.9% of new weekly reported cases,” Dr. Sisk and associates wrote.

Despite the increase, however, the proportion of pediatric COVID-19 cases is still well below children’s share of the overall population (22.6%). Also, “it is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity, although CDC data from public and commercial laboratories show the share of all tests administered to children ages 0-17 has remained stable at 5%-7% since late April,” they said.

Data for the current report were drawn from 49 state health department websites (New York state does not report ages for COVID-19 cases), along with New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Alabama changed its definition of a child case in August and was not included in the trend analysis (see graph), the investigators explained.

Those data show “substantial variation in case growth by region: in April, a preponderance of cases was in the Northeast. In June, cases surged in the South and West, followed by mid-July increases in the Midwest,” Dr. Sisk and associates said.

The increase among children in Midwest states is ongoing with the number of new cases reaching its highest level yet during the week ending Sept. 10, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sisk B et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 29. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-027425.

The cumulative percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in children continues to climb, but “the history behind that cumulative number shows substantial change,” according to a new analysis of state health department data.

As of Sept. 10, the 549,432 cases in children represented 10.0% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the United States following a substantial rise over the course of the pandemic – the figure was 7.7% on July 16 and 3.2% on May 7, Blake Sisk, PhD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics and associates reported Sept. 29 in Pediatrics.

Unlike the cumulative number, the weekly proportion of cases in children fell early in the summer but then started climbing again in late July. “In the last 8 weeks, children represented between 12%-15.9% of new weekly reported cases,” Dr. Sisk and associates wrote.

Despite the increase, however, the proportion of pediatric COVID-19 cases is still well below children’s share of the overall population (22.6%). Also, “it is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity, although CDC data from public and commercial laboratories show the share of all tests administered to children ages 0-17 has remained stable at 5%-7% since late April,” they said.

Data for the current report were drawn from 49 state health department websites (New York state does not report ages for COVID-19 cases), along with New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Alabama changed its definition of a child case in August and was not included in the trend analysis (see graph), the investigators explained.

Those data show “substantial variation in case growth by region: in April, a preponderance of cases was in the Northeast. In June, cases surged in the South and West, followed by mid-July increases in the Midwest,” Dr. Sisk and associates said.

The increase among children in Midwest states is ongoing with the number of new cases reaching its highest level yet during the week ending Sept. 10, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sisk B et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 29. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-027425.