MDedge Emergency Medicine

Thousands of coronavirus patients risk going without treatment and support for debilitating symptoms lasting months because of a lack of awareness of ‘long COVID’, according to a group formed by clinicians with extended serious after-effects of the virus.

Many members of the 100-strong Facebook group UK doctors: COVID “Long tail” have been unable to work for weeks after failing to recover from an episode of COVID-19. They warn of the need for clinical recognition of “long COVID,” along with systems to log symptoms and manage patients in the community. Without this, there could be major consequences for return to work across all professions, as well as implications for disease prevention.
 

‘Weird symptoms’

Three of the group: Dr Amali Lokugamage, consultant obstetrician at the Whittington Hospital; Dr Sharon Taylor, child psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London, and Dr Clare Rayner, a retired occupational health physician and lecturer at the University of Manchester, have highlighted their concerns in The BMJ and on social media groups. They say colleagues are observing a range of symptoms of long COVID in their practices.

These include cardiac, gut and respiratory symptoms, skin manifestations, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, severe fatigue, and relapsing fevers, sometimes continuing for more than 16 weeks, and which they say go well beyond definitions of chronic fatigue. The authors are also aware of a pattern of symptom clusters recurring every third or fourth day, which in some cases are so severe that people are having to take extended periods of sick leave.

Writing in The BMJ the authors say: “Concerns have been raised about the lack of awareness among NHS doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals with regard to the prolonged, varied, and weird symptoms [of COVID-19].”

Speaking to Medscape News UK, Dr. Clare Rayner said: “We see a huge need that is not being met, because these cases are just not being seen in hospital. All the attention has been on the acute illness.”

She pointed to the urgent need for government planning for a surge in people requiring support to return to work following long-term COVID-19 symptoms. According to occupational health research, only 10-40% of people who take 6 weeks off work return to work, dropping to 5%-10% after an absence of 6 months.

In her own case, she is recovering after 4 months of illness, including a hospital admission with gut symptoms and dehydration, and 2 weeks of social service home support. She has experienced a range of relapsing and remitting symptoms, which she describes as ‘bizarre and coming in phases’.
 

Stimulating recovery

The recently-announced NHS portal for COVID-19 patients has been welcomed by the authors as an opportunity for long-standing symptoms to reach the medical and Government radar. But Dr Taylor believes it should have been set up from the start with input from patients with symptoms, to make sure that any support provided reflects the nature of the problems experienced.

In her case, as a previously regular gym attender with a resting heart rate in the 50s, she has now been diagnosed as having multi-organ disease affecting her heart, spleen, lung, and autonomic system. She has fluid on the lungs and heart, and suffers from continuous chest pain and oxygen desaturation when lying down. She has not been able to work since she contracted COVID-19 in March.

“COVID patients with the chronic form of the disease need to be involved in research right from the start to ensure the right questions are asked - not just those who have had acute disease,” she insists to Medscape News UK. “We need to gather evidence, to inform the development of a multi-disciplinary approach and a range of rehabilitation options depending on the organs involved.

“The focus needs to be on stimulating recovery and preventing development of chronic problems. We still don’t know if those with chronic COVID disease are infectious, how long their prolonged cardio-respiratory and neurological complications will last, and crucially whether treatment will reduce the duration of their problems. The worry is that left unattended, these patients may develop irreversible damage leading to chronic illness.”
 

General practice

GPs have been at the forefront of management of the long-standing consequences of COVID-19. In its recent report General practice in the post-COVID world, the Royal College of General Practitioners highlights the need for urgent government planning and funding to prepare general practice services for facilitating the recovery of local communities.

The report calls on the four governments of the UK each to produce a comprehensive plan to support GPs in managing the longer-term effects of COVID-19 in the community, including costed proposals for additional funding for general practice; workforce solutions; reductions in regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’; a systematic approach for identifying patients most likely to need primary care support, and proposals for how health inequalities will be minimized to ensure all patients have access to the necessary post-COVID-19 care.

RCGP Chair Professor Martin Marshall said: “COVID-19 will leave a lingering and difficult legacy and it is GPs working with patients in their communities who will be picking up the pieces.”

One issue is the lack of a reliable estimate of the prevalence of post viral symptoms for other viruses, let alone for COVID-19. Even a 1% chance of long-term problems amongst survivors would suggest 2500 with a need for extra support, but experience with post-viral syndrome generally suggests the prevalence may be more like 3%.

The BMA has been carrying out tracker surveys of its own members at 2-week intervals since March. The most recent, involving more than 5000 doctors, indicated that around 30% of doctors who believed they’d had COVID-19 were still experiencing physical symptoms they thought were caused by the virus, 21% had taken sick leave, and a further 9% had taken annual leave to deal with ongoing symptoms.

Dr David Strain, chair of the BMA medical academic staff committee and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, has a particular interest in the after-effects of COVID-19. He said it was becoming evident that the virus was leaving a lasting legacy with a significant number of people, even younger ones.

He told Medscape News UK: “Once COVID-19 enters the nervous system, the lasting symptoms on people can range from a mild loss of sense of smell or taste, to more severe symptoms such as difficulties in concentration. A small number have also been left with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is poorly understood, and can be difficult to treat. This does not appear to be dependent on the initial severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

“Currently, it is impossible to predict the prevalence of longer-lasting effects. A full assessment of COVID-19’s impact will only be possible once people return to work on a regular basis and the effect on their physical health becomes evident. Of the doctors in the BMA survey who had experienced COVID-19, 15% took sick leave beyond their acute illness, and another 6% used annual leave allowance to extend their recovery time.

“Clearly, more research will be needed into the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the future treatments needed to deal with them.”
 

Further research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has called for applications for research to enhance understanding and management of the health and social care consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic beyond the acute phase, with a particular focus on ‘health outcomes, public health, social care and health service delivery and to mitigate the impact of subsequent phases and aftermath’.

The authors of The BMJ article stress the wide-ranging nature of  ‘long COVID’ symptoms and warn of the dangers of treating them for research purposes under the banner of chronic fatigue. They say: “These wide-ranging, unusual, and potentially very serious symptoms can be anxiety-provoking, particularly secondary to a virus that has only been known to the world for 8 months and which we have barely begun to understand. However, it is dismissive solely to attribute such symptoms to anxiety in the thousands of patients like ourselves who have attended hospital or general practice with chronic COVID-19.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thousands of coronavirus patients risk going without treatment and support for debilitating symptoms lasting months because of a lack of awareness of ‘long COVID’, according to a group formed by clinicians with extended serious after-effects of the virus.

Many members of the 100-strong Facebook group UK doctors: COVID “Long tail” have been unable to work for weeks after failing to recover from an episode of COVID-19. They warn of the need for clinical recognition of “long COVID,” along with systems to log symptoms and manage patients in the community. Without this, there could be major consequences for return to work across all professions, as well as implications for disease prevention.
 

‘Weird symptoms’

Three of the group: Dr Amali Lokugamage, consultant obstetrician at the Whittington Hospital; Dr Sharon Taylor, child psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London, and Dr Clare Rayner, a retired occupational health physician and lecturer at the University of Manchester, have highlighted their concerns in The BMJ and on social media groups. They say colleagues are observing a range of symptoms of long COVID in their practices.

These include cardiac, gut and respiratory symptoms, skin manifestations, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, severe fatigue, and relapsing fevers, sometimes continuing for more than 16 weeks, and which they say go well beyond definitions of chronic fatigue. The authors are also aware of a pattern of symptom clusters recurring every third or fourth day, which in some cases are so severe that people are having to take extended periods of sick leave.

Writing in The BMJ the authors say: “Concerns have been raised about the lack of awareness among NHS doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals with regard to the prolonged, varied, and weird symptoms [of COVID-19].”

Speaking to Medscape News UK, Dr. Clare Rayner said: “We see a huge need that is not being met, because these cases are just not being seen in hospital. All the attention has been on the acute illness.”

She pointed to the urgent need for government planning for a surge in people requiring support to return to work following long-term COVID-19 symptoms. According to occupational health research, only 10-40% of people who take 6 weeks off work return to work, dropping to 5%-10% after an absence of 6 months.

In her own case, she is recovering after 4 months of illness, including a hospital admission with gut symptoms and dehydration, and 2 weeks of social service home support. She has experienced a range of relapsing and remitting symptoms, which she describes as ‘bizarre and coming in phases’.
 

Stimulating recovery

The recently-announced NHS portal for COVID-19 patients has been welcomed by the authors as an opportunity for long-standing symptoms to reach the medical and Government radar. But Dr Taylor believes it should have been set up from the start with input from patients with symptoms, to make sure that any support provided reflects the nature of the problems experienced.

In her case, as a previously regular gym attender with a resting heart rate in the 50s, she has now been diagnosed as having multi-organ disease affecting her heart, spleen, lung, and autonomic system. She has fluid on the lungs and heart, and suffers from continuous chest pain and oxygen desaturation when lying down. She has not been able to work since she contracted COVID-19 in March.

“COVID patients with the chronic form of the disease need to be involved in research right from the start to ensure the right questions are asked - not just those who have had acute disease,” she insists to Medscape News UK. “We need to gather evidence, to inform the development of a multi-disciplinary approach and a range of rehabilitation options depending on the organs involved.

“The focus needs to be on stimulating recovery and preventing development of chronic problems. We still don’t know if those with chronic COVID disease are infectious, how long their prolonged cardio-respiratory and neurological complications will last, and crucially whether treatment will reduce the duration of their problems. The worry is that left unattended, these patients may develop irreversible damage leading to chronic illness.”
 

General practice

GPs have been at the forefront of management of the long-standing consequences of COVID-19. In its recent report General practice in the post-COVID world, the Royal College of General Practitioners highlights the need for urgent government planning and funding to prepare general practice services for facilitating the recovery of local communities.

The report calls on the four governments of the UK each to produce a comprehensive plan to support GPs in managing the longer-term effects of COVID-19 in the community, including costed proposals for additional funding for general practice; workforce solutions; reductions in regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’; a systematic approach for identifying patients most likely to need primary care support, and proposals for how health inequalities will be minimized to ensure all patients have access to the necessary post-COVID-19 care.

RCGP Chair Professor Martin Marshall said: “COVID-19 will leave a lingering and difficult legacy and it is GPs working with patients in their communities who will be picking up the pieces.”

One issue is the lack of a reliable estimate of the prevalence of post viral symptoms for other viruses, let alone for COVID-19. Even a 1% chance of long-term problems amongst survivors would suggest 2500 with a need for extra support, but experience with post-viral syndrome generally suggests the prevalence may be more like 3%.

The BMA has been carrying out tracker surveys of its own members at 2-week intervals since March. The most recent, involving more than 5000 doctors, indicated that around 30% of doctors who believed they’d had COVID-19 were still experiencing physical symptoms they thought were caused by the virus, 21% had taken sick leave, and a further 9% had taken annual leave to deal with ongoing symptoms.

Dr David Strain, chair of the BMA medical academic staff committee and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, has a particular interest in the after-effects of COVID-19. He said it was becoming evident that the virus was leaving a lasting legacy with a significant number of people, even younger ones.

He told Medscape News UK: “Once COVID-19 enters the nervous system, the lasting symptoms on people can range from a mild loss of sense of smell or taste, to more severe symptoms such as difficulties in concentration. A small number have also been left with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is poorly understood, and can be difficult to treat. This does not appear to be dependent on the initial severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

“Currently, it is impossible to predict the prevalence of longer-lasting effects. A full assessment of COVID-19’s impact will only be possible once people return to work on a regular basis and the effect on their physical health becomes evident. Of the doctors in the BMA survey who had experienced COVID-19, 15% took sick leave beyond their acute illness, and another 6% used annual leave allowance to extend their recovery time.

“Clearly, more research will be needed into the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the future treatments needed to deal with them.”
 

Further research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has called for applications for research to enhance understanding and management of the health and social care consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic beyond the acute phase, with a particular focus on ‘health outcomes, public health, social care and health service delivery and to mitigate the impact of subsequent phases and aftermath’.

The authors of The BMJ article stress the wide-ranging nature of  ‘long COVID’ symptoms and warn of the dangers of treating them for research purposes under the banner of chronic fatigue. They say: “These wide-ranging, unusual, and potentially very serious symptoms can be anxiety-provoking, particularly secondary to a virus that has only been known to the world for 8 months and which we have barely begun to understand. However, it is dismissive solely to attribute such symptoms to anxiety in the thousands of patients like ourselves who have attended hospital or general practice with chronic COVID-19.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thousands of coronavirus patients risk going without treatment and support for debilitating symptoms lasting months because of a lack of awareness of ‘long COVID’, according to a group formed by clinicians with extended serious after-effects of the virus.

Many members of the 100-strong Facebook group UK doctors: COVID “Long tail” have been unable to work for weeks after failing to recover from an episode of COVID-19. They warn of the need for clinical recognition of “long COVID,” along with systems to log symptoms and manage patients in the community. Without this, there could be major consequences for return to work across all professions, as well as implications for disease prevention.
 

‘Weird symptoms’

Three of the group: Dr Amali Lokugamage, consultant obstetrician at the Whittington Hospital; Dr Sharon Taylor, child psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London, and Dr Clare Rayner, a retired occupational health physician and lecturer at the University of Manchester, have highlighted their concerns in The BMJ and on social media groups. They say colleagues are observing a range of symptoms of long COVID in their practices.

These include cardiac, gut and respiratory symptoms, skin manifestations, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, severe fatigue, and relapsing fevers, sometimes continuing for more than 16 weeks, and which they say go well beyond definitions of chronic fatigue. The authors are also aware of a pattern of symptom clusters recurring every third or fourth day, which in some cases are so severe that people are having to take extended periods of sick leave.

Writing in The BMJ the authors say: “Concerns have been raised about the lack of awareness among NHS doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals with regard to the prolonged, varied, and weird symptoms [of COVID-19].”

Speaking to Medscape News UK, Dr. Clare Rayner said: “We see a huge need that is not being met, because these cases are just not being seen in hospital. All the attention has been on the acute illness.”

She pointed to the urgent need for government planning for a surge in people requiring support to return to work following long-term COVID-19 symptoms. According to occupational health research, only 10-40% of people who take 6 weeks off work return to work, dropping to 5%-10% after an absence of 6 months.

In her own case, she is recovering after 4 months of illness, including a hospital admission with gut symptoms and dehydration, and 2 weeks of social service home support. She has experienced a range of relapsing and remitting symptoms, which she describes as ‘bizarre and coming in phases’.
 

Stimulating recovery

The recently-announced NHS portal for COVID-19 patients has been welcomed by the authors as an opportunity for long-standing symptoms to reach the medical and Government radar. But Dr Taylor believes it should have been set up from the start with input from patients with symptoms, to make sure that any support provided reflects the nature of the problems experienced.

In her case, as a previously regular gym attender with a resting heart rate in the 50s, she has now been diagnosed as having multi-organ disease affecting her heart, spleen, lung, and autonomic system. She has fluid on the lungs and heart, and suffers from continuous chest pain and oxygen desaturation when lying down. She has not been able to work since she contracted COVID-19 in March.

“COVID patients with the chronic form of the disease need to be involved in research right from the start to ensure the right questions are asked - not just those who have had acute disease,” she insists to Medscape News UK. “We need to gather evidence, to inform the development of a multi-disciplinary approach and a range of rehabilitation options depending on the organs involved.

“The focus needs to be on stimulating recovery and preventing development of chronic problems. We still don’t know if those with chronic COVID disease are infectious, how long their prolonged cardio-respiratory and neurological complications will last, and crucially whether treatment will reduce the duration of their problems. The worry is that left unattended, these patients may develop irreversible damage leading to chronic illness.”
 

General practice

GPs have been at the forefront of management of the long-standing consequences of COVID-19. In its recent report General practice in the post-COVID world, the Royal College of General Practitioners highlights the need for urgent government planning and funding to prepare general practice services for facilitating the recovery of local communities.

The report calls on the four governments of the UK each to produce a comprehensive plan to support GPs in managing the longer-term effects of COVID-19 in the community, including costed proposals for additional funding for general practice; workforce solutions; reductions in regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’; a systematic approach for identifying patients most likely to need primary care support, and proposals for how health inequalities will be minimized to ensure all patients have access to the necessary post-COVID-19 care.

RCGP Chair Professor Martin Marshall said: “COVID-19 will leave a lingering and difficult legacy and it is GPs working with patients in their communities who will be picking up the pieces.”

One issue is the lack of a reliable estimate of the prevalence of post viral symptoms for other viruses, let alone for COVID-19. Even a 1% chance of long-term problems amongst survivors would suggest 2500 with a need for extra support, but experience with post-viral syndrome generally suggests the prevalence may be more like 3%.

The BMA has been carrying out tracker surveys of its own members at 2-week intervals since March. The most recent, involving more than 5000 doctors, indicated that around 30% of doctors who believed they’d had COVID-19 were still experiencing physical symptoms they thought were caused by the virus, 21% had taken sick leave, and a further 9% had taken annual leave to deal with ongoing symptoms.

Dr David Strain, chair of the BMA medical academic staff committee and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, has a particular interest in the after-effects of COVID-19. He said it was becoming evident that the virus was leaving a lasting legacy with a significant number of people, even younger ones.

He told Medscape News UK: “Once COVID-19 enters the nervous system, the lasting symptoms on people can range from a mild loss of sense of smell or taste, to more severe symptoms such as difficulties in concentration. A small number have also been left with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is poorly understood, and can be difficult to treat. This does not appear to be dependent on the initial severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

“Currently, it is impossible to predict the prevalence of longer-lasting effects. A full assessment of COVID-19’s impact will only be possible once people return to work on a regular basis and the effect on their physical health becomes evident. Of the doctors in the BMA survey who had experienced COVID-19, 15% took sick leave beyond their acute illness, and another 6% used annual leave allowance to extend their recovery time.

“Clearly, more research will be needed into the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the future treatments needed to deal with them.”
 

Further research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has called for applications for research to enhance understanding and management of the health and social care consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic beyond the acute phase, with a particular focus on ‘health outcomes, public health, social care and health service delivery and to mitigate the impact of subsequent phases and aftermath’.

The authors of The BMJ article stress the wide-ranging nature of  ‘long COVID’ symptoms and warn of the dangers of treating them for research purposes under the banner of chronic fatigue. They say: “These wide-ranging, unusual, and potentially very serious symptoms can be anxiety-provoking, particularly secondary to a virus that has only been known to the world for 8 months and which we have barely begun to understand. However, it is dismissive solely to attribute such symptoms to anxiety in the thousands of patients like ourselves who have attended hospital or general practice with chronic COVID-19.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown are associated with increased depression and lower levels of life satisfaction – but primarily in specific demographic and socioeconomic groups, new research shows.

A survey of more than 72,000 individuals in the United Kingdom shows that young adults, those in lower-income groups, and those who had been diagnosed with a mental illness were most affected. Interestingly, anxiety increased during the lead-up to the lockdown for the overall group but decreased during the lockdown itself.

A second survey showed that the pandemic triggered poorer mental health among more than 1,400 patients with mental illness or their caregivers. However, individuals found ways of coping despite the increased stress.

Commenting on the findings, David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that expectations of a “tidal wave” of mental health problems during the pandemic may have been wide of the mark.

Instead, the pandemic seems to have caused “an exacerbation” of preexisting mental health conditions, Dr. Spiegel said in an interview.

The studies were presented during a dedicated session at the European Psychiatric Association 2020 Congress, which was virtual this year because of COVID-19.
 

Underrepresented groups

The first presentation was given by Daisy Fancourt, PhD, associate professor of psychobiology and epidemiology, University College London. She described the COVID-19 Social Study, which included more than 72,000 individuals.

Participants were recruited via research databases, media communications, and “more targeted sampling at underrepresented groups, including people from low educational backgrounds and low-income households,” Dr. Fancourt noted.

The respondents took part in the study once a week. This resulted in more than 500,000 completed surveys at a rate of between 3,000 and 6,000 responses per day. Sixteen weeks of data have been gathered so far.

The samples were weighted so they “aligned with population proportions in the U.K. for demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, and educational attainment,” said Dr. Fancourt.

Results showed that mental health decreased in the lead-up to lockdown, with decreases in happiness and increases in fear, stress, and sadness.

At the start of lockdown, approximately 60% of people reported that they were stressed about COVID-19 itself, whether catching it or becoming seriously ill. During lockdown, there was little change in levels of depression, but anxiety decreased and life satisfaction increased during this period.
 

‘We’re not all in this together’

The lower stress level wasn’t surprising, “because people were at home much more. But what is particularly surprising is that it’s continued to drop even though lockdown easing has now been taking place for a number of weeks,” Dr. Fancourt said.

“A big question is: Has mental health been equally affected across this period? And our data seem to suggest that’s very much not the case,” she added.

After assessing different demographic and socioeconomic groups, the investigators found that participants aged 18-29 years had much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of death or self-harm and much lower levels of life satisfaction than older participants.

A similar pattern was found for lower-income groups in comparison with those earning more and for individuals in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, compared with White individuals.

For patients who had been diagnosed with a mental illness, levels of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of death or self-harm, as well as life satisfaction, generally ran parallel to those of the general population, although at a far worse level.

Overall, the results suggest that “we’ve not all been ‘in this together,’ as we heard in some of the media,” Dr. Fancourt said. “In fact, it’s been a very different experience, depending on people’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.”
 

Increased loneliness, economic worry

Further analysis into loneliness showed that twice as many respondents described themselves as lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with beforehand (18.3% vs. 8.5%).

There was very little improvement in loneliness across the study period, “so whilst it might be higher than normal, we’ve not really seen any reduction, even when there’s been easing of lockdown,” Dr. Fancourt said.

A possible reason could be that some of the most lonely respondents were not able to come out of lockdown because of being in a higher-risk group, she noted.

As with the main findings, loneliness during the pandemic was worse for younger adults as well as for those of low income, those who lived alone, and those who had a mental illness.

The researchers assessed lower socioeconomic position (SEP), which was defined by several indicators: annual household income less than £30,000 (about $38,000), high school or lower education, being unemployed, renting instead of owning one’s own home, or living in overcrowded accommodations

During the COVID-19 epidemic, having a lower SEP was associated with a 50%-100% increased risk of losing work in comparison with having a higher SEP. There was also a 300% increased risk of being unable to pay bills and a 600%-800% increased risk of not being able to access essentials, such as medication or sufficient food.

Interestingly, worrying about potential adversities during the pandemic had a similar impact on anxiety and depression. “In other words, worrying about what might be about to happen seems to be as bad for mental health as those things actually happening,” Dr. Fancourt said.

The majority of participants did not feel in control of their future plans and felt more out of control of their employment and mental health than they did their physical health.

Individuals aged 18-29 years felt least in control over finances, relationships, future plans, and mental health. Those aged 60 years or older were the most likely to report feeling in control on all measures.
 

Puzzling results

Dr. Spiegel described the results as “a little puzzling in some ways.” He noted that the easing of discomfort that participants felt during lockdown suggests that the idea of a lockdown being a terrible thing “is not necessarily the case.”

“People realize that their lives and lifestyles are being threatened, and it can be actually comforting to be doing something, even if what you’re doing is rather uncomfortable and disruptive of life,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved with the research.

The lockdown may have led people “to think a little more deeply about what matters to them in life,” he added.

A big message from the study is that “the most anxious and depressed were young people in their late teens to late 20s,” Dr. Spiegel noted. That’s when individuals are most sociable, when they form their own social networks, and when they look for partners.

“What’s a little scarier is they also had higher levels of thoughts of death and self-harm and less life satisfaction. So I think the consequences of social disruption were most profound in this study for people for whom social life is the most important,” said Dr. Spiegel.

However, Roxane Cohen Silver, PhD, professor of psychological science, medicine, and public health, University of California, Irvine, noted that, despite the large number of participants, the study’s methodology left many questions unanswered.

She explained that to make sound public policy recommendations, “one needs to pay a great deal of attention to the methods that are used in collecting those data.” From the available information, the degree to which the sample is representative and the participation rate are unclear, which leaves the study open to selection bias, despite the weighting the researchers performed to generate the results.

“The methodological soundness of the studies on the mental health effect of COVID are just as important, I believe, as they are when we’re trying to understand the effect of treatment or a drug,” Dr. Cohen Silver said.
 

Relief during the pandemic?

The second presentation was given by Sara Simblett, PhD, department of psychology, King’s College London, who described the Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study.

This was a two-part investigation in which 31 semistructured interviews with users of mental health services and carers formed the basis of a qualitative survey. It examined the impact of the pandemic on thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and life situations.

The survey was advertised via social media and mental health charities, yielding a total of 1,402 responses. These included responses from 968 individuals who had experience of a mental health condition. Of these, 266 were currently using mental health services, and 189 were informal carers.

Of those, 46.8% met the case threshold for anxiety, 40.3% met the threshold for depression, and 45.3% were determined to have “low resilience.”

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered poorer mental health in the majority of respondents, at 60.8% among those with a preexisting mental health condition and 64.1% among informal carers.

This was reflected in 95.3% of respondents saying that things were uncertain, 81.3% saying they felt restricted by the pandemic, and 71.9% saying that their day was less structured.

However, the survey also revealed that 79.8% felt relieved during the pandemic, 82.1% said that their memory was “much better,” and 62.9% found it easier to concentrate and make plans.

In addition, many people turned to coping mechanisms; 74.7% looked to religion and spirituality as a source of support, and 64.2% used health and wellness apps.

The COVID-19 Social Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. The Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study is a collaboration with the McPin Foundation. The investigators and commentators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown are associated with increased depression and lower levels of life satisfaction – but primarily in specific demographic and socioeconomic groups, new research shows.

A survey of more than 72,000 individuals in the United Kingdom shows that young adults, those in lower-income groups, and those who had been diagnosed with a mental illness were most affected. Interestingly, anxiety increased during the lead-up to the lockdown for the overall group but decreased during the lockdown itself.

A second survey showed that the pandemic triggered poorer mental health among more than 1,400 patients with mental illness or their caregivers. However, individuals found ways of coping despite the increased stress.

Commenting on the findings, David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that expectations of a “tidal wave” of mental health problems during the pandemic may have been wide of the mark.

Instead, the pandemic seems to have caused “an exacerbation” of preexisting mental health conditions, Dr. Spiegel said in an interview.

The studies were presented during a dedicated session at the European Psychiatric Association 2020 Congress, which was virtual this year because of COVID-19.
 

Underrepresented groups

The first presentation was given by Daisy Fancourt, PhD, associate professor of psychobiology and epidemiology, University College London. She described the COVID-19 Social Study, which included more than 72,000 individuals.

Participants were recruited via research databases, media communications, and “more targeted sampling at underrepresented groups, including people from low educational backgrounds and low-income households,” Dr. Fancourt noted.

The respondents took part in the study once a week. This resulted in more than 500,000 completed surveys at a rate of between 3,000 and 6,000 responses per day. Sixteen weeks of data have been gathered so far.

The samples were weighted so they “aligned with population proportions in the U.K. for demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, and educational attainment,” said Dr. Fancourt.

Results showed that mental health decreased in the lead-up to lockdown, with decreases in happiness and increases in fear, stress, and sadness.

At the start of lockdown, approximately 60% of people reported that they were stressed about COVID-19 itself, whether catching it or becoming seriously ill. During lockdown, there was little change in levels of depression, but anxiety decreased and life satisfaction increased during this period.
 

‘We’re not all in this together’

The lower stress level wasn’t surprising, “because people were at home much more. But what is particularly surprising is that it’s continued to drop even though lockdown easing has now been taking place for a number of weeks,” Dr. Fancourt said.

“A big question is: Has mental health been equally affected across this period? And our data seem to suggest that’s very much not the case,” she added.

After assessing different demographic and socioeconomic groups, the investigators found that participants aged 18-29 years had much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of death or self-harm and much lower levels of life satisfaction than older participants.

A similar pattern was found for lower-income groups in comparison with those earning more and for individuals in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, compared with White individuals.

For patients who had been diagnosed with a mental illness, levels of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of death or self-harm, as well as life satisfaction, generally ran parallel to those of the general population, although at a far worse level.

Overall, the results suggest that “we’ve not all been ‘in this together,’ as we heard in some of the media,” Dr. Fancourt said. “In fact, it’s been a very different experience, depending on people’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.”
 

Increased loneliness, economic worry

Further analysis into loneliness showed that twice as many respondents described themselves as lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with beforehand (18.3% vs. 8.5%).

There was very little improvement in loneliness across the study period, “so whilst it might be higher than normal, we’ve not really seen any reduction, even when there’s been easing of lockdown,” Dr. Fancourt said.

A possible reason could be that some of the most lonely respondents were not able to come out of lockdown because of being in a higher-risk group, she noted.

As with the main findings, loneliness during the pandemic was worse for younger adults as well as for those of low income, those who lived alone, and those who had a mental illness.

The researchers assessed lower socioeconomic position (SEP), which was defined by several indicators: annual household income less than £30,000 (about $38,000), high school or lower education, being unemployed, renting instead of owning one’s own home, or living in overcrowded accommodations

During the COVID-19 epidemic, having a lower SEP was associated with a 50%-100% increased risk of losing work in comparison with having a higher SEP. There was also a 300% increased risk of being unable to pay bills and a 600%-800% increased risk of not being able to access essentials, such as medication or sufficient food.

Interestingly, worrying about potential adversities during the pandemic had a similar impact on anxiety and depression. “In other words, worrying about what might be about to happen seems to be as bad for mental health as those things actually happening,” Dr. Fancourt said.

The majority of participants did not feel in control of their future plans and felt more out of control of their employment and mental health than they did their physical health.

Individuals aged 18-29 years felt least in control over finances, relationships, future plans, and mental health. Those aged 60 years or older were the most likely to report feeling in control on all measures.
 

Puzzling results

Dr. Spiegel described the results as “a little puzzling in some ways.” He noted that the easing of discomfort that participants felt during lockdown suggests that the idea of a lockdown being a terrible thing “is not necessarily the case.”

“People realize that their lives and lifestyles are being threatened, and it can be actually comforting to be doing something, even if what you’re doing is rather uncomfortable and disruptive of life,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved with the research.

The lockdown may have led people “to think a little more deeply about what matters to them in life,” he added.

A big message from the study is that “the most anxious and depressed were young people in their late teens to late 20s,” Dr. Spiegel noted. That’s when individuals are most sociable, when they form their own social networks, and when they look for partners.

“What’s a little scarier is they also had higher levels of thoughts of death and self-harm and less life satisfaction. So I think the consequences of social disruption were most profound in this study for people for whom social life is the most important,” said Dr. Spiegel.

However, Roxane Cohen Silver, PhD, professor of psychological science, medicine, and public health, University of California, Irvine, noted that, despite the large number of participants, the study’s methodology left many questions unanswered.

She explained that to make sound public policy recommendations, “one needs to pay a great deal of attention to the methods that are used in collecting those data.” From the available information, the degree to which the sample is representative and the participation rate are unclear, which leaves the study open to selection bias, despite the weighting the researchers performed to generate the results.

“The methodological soundness of the studies on the mental health effect of COVID are just as important, I believe, as they are when we’re trying to understand the effect of treatment or a drug,” Dr. Cohen Silver said.
 

Relief during the pandemic?

The second presentation was given by Sara Simblett, PhD, department of psychology, King’s College London, who described the Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study.

This was a two-part investigation in which 31 semistructured interviews with users of mental health services and carers formed the basis of a qualitative survey. It examined the impact of the pandemic on thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and life situations.

The survey was advertised via social media and mental health charities, yielding a total of 1,402 responses. These included responses from 968 individuals who had experience of a mental health condition. Of these, 266 were currently using mental health services, and 189 were informal carers.

Of those, 46.8% met the case threshold for anxiety, 40.3% met the threshold for depression, and 45.3% were determined to have “low resilience.”

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered poorer mental health in the majority of respondents, at 60.8% among those with a preexisting mental health condition and 64.1% among informal carers.

This was reflected in 95.3% of respondents saying that things were uncertain, 81.3% saying they felt restricted by the pandemic, and 71.9% saying that their day was less structured.

However, the survey also revealed that 79.8% felt relieved during the pandemic, 82.1% said that their memory was “much better,” and 62.9% found it easier to concentrate and make plans.

In addition, many people turned to coping mechanisms; 74.7% looked to religion and spirituality as a source of support, and 64.2% used health and wellness apps.

The COVID-19 Social Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. The Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study is a collaboration with the McPin Foundation. The investigators and commentators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown are associated with increased depression and lower levels of life satisfaction – but primarily in specific demographic and socioeconomic groups, new research shows.

A survey of more than 72,000 individuals in the United Kingdom shows that young adults, those in lower-income groups, and those who had been diagnosed with a mental illness were most affected. Interestingly, anxiety increased during the lead-up to the lockdown for the overall group but decreased during the lockdown itself.

A second survey showed that the pandemic triggered poorer mental health among more than 1,400 patients with mental illness or their caregivers. However, individuals found ways of coping despite the increased stress.

Commenting on the findings, David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that expectations of a “tidal wave” of mental health problems during the pandemic may have been wide of the mark.

Instead, the pandemic seems to have caused “an exacerbation” of preexisting mental health conditions, Dr. Spiegel said in an interview.

The studies were presented during a dedicated session at the European Psychiatric Association 2020 Congress, which was virtual this year because of COVID-19.
 

Underrepresented groups

The first presentation was given by Daisy Fancourt, PhD, associate professor of psychobiology and epidemiology, University College London. She described the COVID-19 Social Study, which included more than 72,000 individuals.

Participants were recruited via research databases, media communications, and “more targeted sampling at underrepresented groups, including people from low educational backgrounds and low-income households,” Dr. Fancourt noted.

The respondents took part in the study once a week. This resulted in more than 500,000 completed surveys at a rate of between 3,000 and 6,000 responses per day. Sixteen weeks of data have been gathered so far.

The samples were weighted so they “aligned with population proportions in the U.K. for demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, and educational attainment,” said Dr. Fancourt.

Results showed that mental health decreased in the lead-up to lockdown, with decreases in happiness and increases in fear, stress, and sadness.

At the start of lockdown, approximately 60% of people reported that they were stressed about COVID-19 itself, whether catching it or becoming seriously ill. During lockdown, there was little change in levels of depression, but anxiety decreased and life satisfaction increased during this period.
 

‘We’re not all in this together’

The lower stress level wasn’t surprising, “because people were at home much more. But what is particularly surprising is that it’s continued to drop even though lockdown easing has now been taking place for a number of weeks,” Dr. Fancourt said.

“A big question is: Has mental health been equally affected across this period? And our data seem to suggest that’s very much not the case,” she added.

After assessing different demographic and socioeconomic groups, the investigators found that participants aged 18-29 years had much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of death or self-harm and much lower levels of life satisfaction than older participants.

A similar pattern was found for lower-income groups in comparison with those earning more and for individuals in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, compared with White individuals.

For patients who had been diagnosed with a mental illness, levels of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of death or self-harm, as well as life satisfaction, generally ran parallel to those of the general population, although at a far worse level.

Overall, the results suggest that “we’ve not all been ‘in this together,’ as we heard in some of the media,” Dr. Fancourt said. “In fact, it’s been a very different experience, depending on people’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.”
 

Increased loneliness, economic worry

Further analysis into loneliness showed that twice as many respondents described themselves as lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with beforehand (18.3% vs. 8.5%).

There was very little improvement in loneliness across the study period, “so whilst it might be higher than normal, we’ve not really seen any reduction, even when there’s been easing of lockdown,” Dr. Fancourt said.

A possible reason could be that some of the most lonely respondents were not able to come out of lockdown because of being in a higher-risk group, she noted.

As with the main findings, loneliness during the pandemic was worse for younger adults as well as for those of low income, those who lived alone, and those who had a mental illness.

The researchers assessed lower socioeconomic position (SEP), which was defined by several indicators: annual household income less than £30,000 (about $38,000), high school or lower education, being unemployed, renting instead of owning one’s own home, or living in overcrowded accommodations

During the COVID-19 epidemic, having a lower SEP was associated with a 50%-100% increased risk of losing work in comparison with having a higher SEP. There was also a 300% increased risk of being unable to pay bills and a 600%-800% increased risk of not being able to access essentials, such as medication or sufficient food.

Interestingly, worrying about potential adversities during the pandemic had a similar impact on anxiety and depression. “In other words, worrying about what might be about to happen seems to be as bad for mental health as those things actually happening,” Dr. Fancourt said.

The majority of participants did not feel in control of their future plans and felt more out of control of their employment and mental health than they did their physical health.

Individuals aged 18-29 years felt least in control over finances, relationships, future plans, and mental health. Those aged 60 years or older were the most likely to report feeling in control on all measures.
 

Puzzling results

Dr. Spiegel described the results as “a little puzzling in some ways.” He noted that the easing of discomfort that participants felt during lockdown suggests that the idea of a lockdown being a terrible thing “is not necessarily the case.”

“People realize that their lives and lifestyles are being threatened, and it can be actually comforting to be doing something, even if what you’re doing is rather uncomfortable and disruptive of life,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved with the research.

The lockdown may have led people “to think a little more deeply about what matters to them in life,” he added.

A big message from the study is that “the most anxious and depressed were young people in their late teens to late 20s,” Dr. Spiegel noted. That’s when individuals are most sociable, when they form their own social networks, and when they look for partners.

“What’s a little scarier is they also had higher levels of thoughts of death and self-harm and less life satisfaction. So I think the consequences of social disruption were most profound in this study for people for whom social life is the most important,” said Dr. Spiegel.

However, Roxane Cohen Silver, PhD, professor of psychological science, medicine, and public health, University of California, Irvine, noted that, despite the large number of participants, the study’s methodology left many questions unanswered.

She explained that to make sound public policy recommendations, “one needs to pay a great deal of attention to the methods that are used in collecting those data.” From the available information, the degree to which the sample is representative and the participation rate are unclear, which leaves the study open to selection bias, despite the weighting the researchers performed to generate the results.

“The methodological soundness of the studies on the mental health effect of COVID are just as important, I believe, as they are when we’re trying to understand the effect of treatment or a drug,” Dr. Cohen Silver said.
 

Relief during the pandemic?

The second presentation was given by Sara Simblett, PhD, department of psychology, King’s College London, who described the Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study.

This was a two-part investigation in which 31 semistructured interviews with users of mental health services and carers formed the basis of a qualitative survey. It examined the impact of the pandemic on thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and life situations.

The survey was advertised via social media and mental health charities, yielding a total of 1,402 responses. These included responses from 968 individuals who had experience of a mental health condition. Of these, 266 were currently using mental health services, and 189 were informal carers.

Of those, 46.8% met the case threshold for anxiety, 40.3% met the threshold for depression, and 45.3% were determined to have “low resilience.”

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered poorer mental health in the majority of respondents, at 60.8% among those with a preexisting mental health condition and 64.1% among informal carers.

This was reflected in 95.3% of respondents saying that things were uncertain, 81.3% saying they felt restricted by the pandemic, and 71.9% saying that their day was less structured.

However, the survey also revealed that 79.8% felt relieved during the pandemic, 82.1% said that their memory was “much better,” and 62.9% found it easier to concentrate and make plans.

In addition, many people turned to coping mechanisms; 74.7% looked to religion and spirituality as a source of support, and 64.2% used health and wellness apps.

The COVID-19 Social Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. The Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study is a collaboration with the McPin Foundation. The investigators and commentators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Young adult smokers who stop smoking in the first year after an initial myocardial infarction are far less likely to die over the next 10 years than their peers who continue to smoke. Yet nearly two-thirds keep smoking after the event, according to new data from the Partners YOUNG-MI Registry.

“Smoking is one of the most common risk factors for developing an MI at a young age. ... This reinforces the need to have more young individuals avoid, or quit, the use of tobacco,” Ron Blankstein, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Yet, the finding that 62% of young adults continue to smoke 1 year after MI points to an “enormous need for better smoking cessation efforts following a heart attack,” he said.
 

“Powerful” message for clinicians

“This study joins an incredibly powerful body of evidence that says if you quit smoking, you’re going to live longer,” said Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“As physicians, there is nothing we can do that will have a greater impact for our patients than quitting smoking. The study is a powerful call for clinicians to intervene with their patients that smoke – both if you have an MI or if you don’t,” Dr. Fiore told this news organization.

The study involved 2,072 individuals 50 years or younger (median age, 45 years; 81% male) who were hospitalized for an initial MI at two large academic medical centers in Boston. Of these, 33.9% were never-smokers, 13.6% were former smokers, and 52.5% were smokers at the time of their MI.

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, those who quit smoking had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P < .001) and a cardiovascular cause (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79; P = .02), relative to those who continued to smoke.

The results remained statistically significant in a propensity-matched analysis for both all-cause (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < .001) and CV mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = .003).

“Although patients who quit smoking were similar to those who continued to smoke with respect to their baseline characteristics, smoking cessation was associated with an approximate 70%-80% reduction in all-cause and CV mortality,” the authors note in their article, published online July 8 in JAMA Network Open.

They say it’s also noteworthy that long-term death rates of never-smokers and former smokers who quit before the MI were nearly identical.

‘A failure of our health care system’

The bottom line, said Dr. Blankstein, is that it is “never too late to quit, and those who experience an MI should do so right away. Our health care system must help promote such efforts, as there is immense room for improvement.”

Dr. Fiore said: “When I see an article like this, it just reminds me that, if you’re really thinking about staying healthy, there is nothing better you can do to improve the quality and longevity of your life than quitting smoking.”

The observation that many patients continue to smoke after MI is a “failure of our health care system, and it’s an individual failure in that these individuals are not able to overcome their powerful nicotine dependence. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that’s resulting in unnecessary deaths,” said Dr. Fiore.

There is no “magic bullet” to overcome nicotine addiction, but there are approved treatments that can “substantially boost quit rates,” he noted.

The two most effective smoking-cessation treatments are varenicline (Chantix) and combination nicotine replacement therapy, a patch combined ideally with nicotine mini lozenges, particularly when combined with some brief counseling, said Fiore.

He encourages cardiologists to get their patients to commit to quitting and then link them to resources such as 1-800-QUIT-NOW or SmokeFree.gov.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen and Astellas. Dr. Fiore had no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adult smokers who stop smoking in the first year after an initial myocardial infarction are far less likely to die over the next 10 years than their peers who continue to smoke. Yet nearly two-thirds keep smoking after the event, according to new data from the Partners YOUNG-MI Registry.

“Smoking is one of the most common risk factors for developing an MI at a young age. ... This reinforces the need to have more young individuals avoid, or quit, the use of tobacco,” Ron Blankstein, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Yet, the finding that 62% of young adults continue to smoke 1 year after MI points to an “enormous need for better smoking cessation efforts following a heart attack,” he said.
 

“Powerful” message for clinicians

“This study joins an incredibly powerful body of evidence that says if you quit smoking, you’re going to live longer,” said Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“As physicians, there is nothing we can do that will have a greater impact for our patients than quitting smoking. The study is a powerful call for clinicians to intervene with their patients that smoke – both if you have an MI or if you don’t,” Dr. Fiore told this news organization.

The study involved 2,072 individuals 50 years or younger (median age, 45 years; 81% male) who were hospitalized for an initial MI at two large academic medical centers in Boston. Of these, 33.9% were never-smokers, 13.6% were former smokers, and 52.5% were smokers at the time of their MI.

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, those who quit smoking had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P < .001) and a cardiovascular cause (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79; P = .02), relative to those who continued to smoke.

The results remained statistically significant in a propensity-matched analysis for both all-cause (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < .001) and CV mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = .003).

“Although patients who quit smoking were similar to those who continued to smoke with respect to their baseline characteristics, smoking cessation was associated with an approximate 70%-80% reduction in all-cause and CV mortality,” the authors note in their article, published online July 8 in JAMA Network Open.

They say it’s also noteworthy that long-term death rates of never-smokers and former smokers who quit before the MI were nearly identical.

‘A failure of our health care system’

The bottom line, said Dr. Blankstein, is that it is “never too late to quit, and those who experience an MI should do so right away. Our health care system must help promote such efforts, as there is immense room for improvement.”

Dr. Fiore said: “When I see an article like this, it just reminds me that, if you’re really thinking about staying healthy, there is nothing better you can do to improve the quality and longevity of your life than quitting smoking.”

The observation that many patients continue to smoke after MI is a “failure of our health care system, and it’s an individual failure in that these individuals are not able to overcome their powerful nicotine dependence. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that’s resulting in unnecessary deaths,” said Dr. Fiore.

There is no “magic bullet” to overcome nicotine addiction, but there are approved treatments that can “substantially boost quit rates,” he noted.

The two most effective smoking-cessation treatments are varenicline (Chantix) and combination nicotine replacement therapy, a patch combined ideally with nicotine mini lozenges, particularly when combined with some brief counseling, said Fiore.

He encourages cardiologists to get their patients to commit to quitting and then link them to resources such as 1-800-QUIT-NOW or SmokeFree.gov.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen and Astellas. Dr. Fiore had no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adult smokers who stop smoking in the first year after an initial myocardial infarction are far less likely to die over the next 10 years than their peers who continue to smoke. Yet nearly two-thirds keep smoking after the event, according to new data from the Partners YOUNG-MI Registry.

“Smoking is one of the most common risk factors for developing an MI at a young age. ... This reinforces the need to have more young individuals avoid, or quit, the use of tobacco,” Ron Blankstein, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Yet, the finding that 62% of young adults continue to smoke 1 year after MI points to an “enormous need for better smoking cessation efforts following a heart attack,” he said.
 

“Powerful” message for clinicians

“This study joins an incredibly powerful body of evidence that says if you quit smoking, you’re going to live longer,” said Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“As physicians, there is nothing we can do that will have a greater impact for our patients than quitting smoking. The study is a powerful call for clinicians to intervene with their patients that smoke – both if you have an MI or if you don’t,” Dr. Fiore told this news organization.

The study involved 2,072 individuals 50 years or younger (median age, 45 years; 81% male) who were hospitalized for an initial MI at two large academic medical centers in Boston. Of these, 33.9% were never-smokers, 13.6% were former smokers, and 52.5% were smokers at the time of their MI.

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, those who quit smoking had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P < .001) and a cardiovascular cause (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79; P = .02), relative to those who continued to smoke.

The results remained statistically significant in a propensity-matched analysis for both all-cause (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < .001) and CV mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = .003).

“Although patients who quit smoking were similar to those who continued to smoke with respect to their baseline characteristics, smoking cessation was associated with an approximate 70%-80% reduction in all-cause and CV mortality,” the authors note in their article, published online July 8 in JAMA Network Open.

They say it’s also noteworthy that long-term death rates of never-smokers and former smokers who quit before the MI were nearly identical.

‘A failure of our health care system’

The bottom line, said Dr. Blankstein, is that it is “never too late to quit, and those who experience an MI should do so right away. Our health care system must help promote such efforts, as there is immense room for improvement.”

Dr. Fiore said: “When I see an article like this, it just reminds me that, if you’re really thinking about staying healthy, there is nothing better you can do to improve the quality and longevity of your life than quitting smoking.”

The observation that many patients continue to smoke after MI is a “failure of our health care system, and it’s an individual failure in that these individuals are not able to overcome their powerful nicotine dependence. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that’s resulting in unnecessary deaths,” said Dr. Fiore.

There is no “magic bullet” to overcome nicotine addiction, but there are approved treatments that can “substantially boost quit rates,” he noted.

The two most effective smoking-cessation treatments are varenicline (Chantix) and combination nicotine replacement therapy, a patch combined ideally with nicotine mini lozenges, particularly when combined with some brief counseling, said Fiore.

He encourages cardiologists to get their patients to commit to quitting and then link them to resources such as 1-800-QUIT-NOW or SmokeFree.gov.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen and Astellas. Dr. Fiore had no relevant disclosures.

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

The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.

The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.

(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)

The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.

The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.

Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.

Further specifications

Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.

“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”

The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.

The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.

In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.

“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.

“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.

The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.

The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”

“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”

Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.

CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.

Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.

The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.

(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)

The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.

The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.

Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.

Further specifications

Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.

“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”

The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.

The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.

In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.

“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.

“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.

The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.

The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”

“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”

Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.

CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.

Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.

The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.

(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)

The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.

The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.

Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.

Further specifications

Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.

“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”

The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.

The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.

In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.

“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.

“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.

The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.

The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”

“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”

Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.

CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.

Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

People with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or above are at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19, while a BMI of 35 and higher dramatically increases the risk for death, new research suggests.

The data, from nearly 500 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April 2020, were published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by Matteo Rottoli, MD, of the Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna (Italy), and colleagues.

The data support the recent change by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lower the cutoff for categorizing a person at increased risk from COVID-19 from a BMI of 40 down to 30. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service still lists only a BMI of 40 or above as placing a person at “moderate risk (clinically vulnerable).”

“This finding calls for prevention and treatment strategies to reduce the risk of infection and hospitalization in patients with relevant degrees of obesity, supporting a revision of the BMI cutoff of 40 kg/m², which was proposed as an independent risk factor for an adverse outcome of COVID-19 in the ... guidelines for social distancing in the United Kingdom: It may be appropriate to include patients with BMI >30 among those at higher risk for COVID-19 severe progression,” the authors wrote.

The study included 482 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 to a single Italian hospital between March 1 and April 20, 2020. Of those, 41.9% had a BMI of less than 25 (normal weight), 36.5% had a BMI of 25-29.9 (overweight), and 21.6% had BMI of at least 30 (obese). Of the obese group, 20 (4.1%) had BMIs of at least 35, while 18 patients (3.7%) had BMIs of less than 20 (underweight).

Among those with obesity, 51.9% experienced respiratory failure, 36.4% were admitted to the ICU, 25% required mechanical ventilation, and 29.8% died within 30 days of symptom onset.

Patients with BMIs of at least 30 had significantly increased risks for respiratory failure (odds ratio, 2.48; P = .001), ICU admission (OR, 5.28; P < .001), and death (2.35, P = .017), compared with those with lower BMIs. Within the group classified as obese, the risks of respiratory failure and ICU admission were higher, with BMIs of 30-34.9 (OR, 2.32; P = .004 and OR, 4.96; P < .001, respectively) and for BMIs of at least 35 (OR, 3.24; P = .019 and OR, 6.58; P < .001, respectively).

The risk of death was significantly higher among patients with a BMI of at least 35 (OR, 12.1; P < .001).

Every 1-unit increase in BMI was significantly associated with all outcomes, but there was no significant difference in any outcome between the 25-29.9 BMI category and normal weight. In all models, the BMI cutoff for increased risk was 30.

The authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rottoli M et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1530/EJE-20-054.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

We live in historic times. A worldwide pandemic is surging in the United States, with millions infected and the world’s highest death rate. Many of our hospitals are overwhelmed. Schools have been closed for months. Businesses are struggling, and unemployment is at record levels. The murder of George Floyd unleashed an outpouring of grief and rage over police brutality and structural racism.

Thinkstock

The value of knowing about these risk factors would seem self-evident; it would inform a patient’s health care from screening for cancer or heart disease, referral for mild depressive symptoms, and counseling about alcohol consumption. But this research did not lead to the establishment of routine screening for childhood adversity in primary care practices. There are multiple reasons for this, including growing pressure on physician time and discomfort with starting conversations about potentially traumatic material. But perhaps the greatest obstacle has been uncertainty about what to offer patients who screened in. What is the treatment for a high ACE score?

Even without treatments, we have learned much about childhood adversity since Dr. Anda and Dr. Felitti published their landmark study. Other more chronic adverse childhood experiences also contribute to adult health risk, such as poverty, homelessness, discrimination, community violence, parental chronic illness, or disability or placement in foster care. Having a high ACE score does not only affect health in adulthood. Children with an ACE score of 4 are 2 times as likely to have asthma^2,3 and allergies³, 2 times as likely to be obese⁴, 3 times as likely to have headaches³ and dental problems^5,6, 4 times as likely to have depression^7,8, 5 times as likely to have ADHD^8,9, 7 times as likely to have high rates of school absenteeism³ and aggression¹⁰, and over 30 times as likely to have learning or behavioral problems at school⁴. There is a growing body of knowledge about how chronic, severe stress in childhood affects can lead to pathological alterations in neuroendocrine and immune function. But this has not led to any concrete treatments that may be preventive or reparative.

Movement toward expanding screening nonetheless has accelerated. In California, Nadine Burke-Harris, MD, a pediatrician who studied ACEs and children’s health was named the state’s first Surgeon General in 2019 and spearheaded an effort to make screening for ACEs easier. Starting in 2020, MediCal will pay for annual screenings, and the state is offering training and resources on how to screen and what to do with the information to help patients and families.

The coronavirus pandemic has only highlighted the risks of childhood adversity. The burden of infection and mortality has been borne disproportionately by people of color and those with multiple chronic medical conditions (obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.). While viruses do not discriminate, they are more likely to infect those with higher risk of exposure and to kill those who are physiologically vulnerable.

And the pandemic increases the risk for adversity for today’s children and families. When children cannot attend school, financially vulnerable parents may have to choose between supervising them or feeding them. Families who suddenly are all in a small apartment together without school or other outside supports may be at higher risk for domestic violence and child abuse. Unemployment and financial uncertainty will increase the rates of substance abuse and depression amongst parents. And the serious illness or death of a parent will be a more common event for children in the year ahead. One of these risk factors may increase the likelihood of others.

Beyond the obvious need for substantial policy changes focused on housing, education, and health care, there are immediate and concrete strategies that can build resilience in children and their families. And resilience can build on itself, as children face subsequent challenges with the support of caring connected adults.

The critical first step is asking. Then listen calmly and supportively, normalizing for parents and children how common these experiences are. Explain how they affect health and well-being. Explain that adversity and its consequences are not their fault. Then educate them about what is in their control: the skills they can practice to buffer against the consequences of adversity and build resilience. They sound simple, but still require effort and work. And the pandemic has created some difficulty (social distancing) and opportunity (more family time, fewer school demands).
 

Sleep

Help parents establish and protect consistent, restful sleep for their children. They can set a consistent bedtime and a calm routine, with screens all off at least 30 minutes before sleep and reading before sleep. Restful sleep is physiologically and psychologically protective to everyone in a family.

Movement

Beyond directly improving physical health, establishing habits of exercise – especially outside – every day can effectively manage ongoing stress, build skills of self-regulation, and help with sleep.

Find out what parents and their children like to do together (walking the dog, shooting hoops, even dancing) and help them devise ways to create family routines around exercise.
 

Nutrition

Food should be a source of pleasure, but stress can make food into a source of comfort or escape. Help parents to create realistic ways to consistently offer healthy family meals and discourage unhealthy habits.

Even small changes like water instead of soda can help, and there are nutritional and emotional benefits to eating a healthy breakfast or dinner together as a family.
 

Connections

Nourishing social connections are protective. Help parents think about protecting time to spend with their children for talking, playing games, or even singing.

They should support their children’s connections to other caring adults, through community organizations (church, community centers, or sports), and they should know who their children’s reliable friends are. Parents will benefit from these supports for themselves, which in turn will benefit the full family.
 

Self-awareness

Activities that cultivate mindfulness are protective. Parents can simply ask how their children are feeling, physically or emotionally, and be able to bear it when it is uncomfortable. Work towards nonjudgmental awareness of how they are feeling. Learning what is relaxing or recharging for them (exercise, music, a hot bath, a good book, time with a friend) will protect against defaulting into maladaptive coping such as escape, numbing, or avoidance.

Of course, if you learn about symptoms that suggest PTSD, depression, or addiction, you should help your patient connect with effective treatment. The difficulty of referring to a mental health provider does not mean you should not try and bring as many people onto the team and into the orbit of the child and family at risk. It may be easier to access some therapy given the new availability of telemedicine visits across many more systems of care. Although the heaviest burdens of adversity are not being borne equally, the fact that adversity is currently a shared experience makes this a moment of promise.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Swick and Dr. Jellinek had no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References
1. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58.
2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114: 379-84.
3. BMC Public Health. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5699-8.
4. Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Jun;35(6):408-13.
5. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015;43:193-9.
6. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;46(5): 442-8.
7. Pediatrics 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4016.
8. Matern Child Health J. 2016 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s10995-015-1915-7.
9. Acad Pediatr. 2017 May-Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.013.
10. Pediatrics. 2010 Apr. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
 

This article was updated 7/27/2020.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.

If either high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) or coronary artery calcium (CAC) are elevated, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) climbs substantially, which suggests these biomarkers yield more prognostic information when they are used together, according to a cohort study with a median 15 years of follow-up.

Among those with a double negative result, meaning hs-cTnT was less than the limit of detection (<3 ng/L) and the CAC score was zero, only 2.8% developed ASCVD within 10 years, but the rates climbed to 4.6% if hs-cTnT was detectable and to 9.8% if the CAC score exceeded zero even when the other biomarker was negative.

“The increased risk for ASCVD among those with discordant results indicate that their prognostic information is complementary, favoring their conjoined use for risk prediction,” reported a multicenter team of investigators led by Allan S. Jaffe, MD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was performed with data from 6,749 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), which is a longitudinal, community-based study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Over the course of long-term follow-up in a patient population that was about half female, 39% non-Hispanic white, 28% Black, 22% Hispanic American, and 12% Asian, ASCVD events were evaluated in relation to both biomarkers measured at baseline.

At baseline, both biomarkers were negative in 22%, both positive in 40%, and discordant in 38%.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, when 1,002 ASCVD events had occurred, the crude rate of ASCVD was 2.8 per 1,000 person-years in the double-negative group. When compared with this, the adjusted hazard ratio for ASCVD among those with double positive biomarkers was 3.5 (P < .00001). Increased risk was also highly significant if just hs-cTnT was positive (HR, 1.59; P = .003) or if just CAC was positive (HR, 2.74; P < .00001).

The added value of using both biomarkers to identify individuals at very low risk of ASCVD makes sense, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial. Written by a team led by John W. McEvoy, MB, BCh, National University of Ireland, Galway, the editorial explained why the information is complementary.

“CAC indicates subclinical atherosclerosis, whereas hs-cTnT indicates myocardial ischemia or damage, not just from coronary stenosis but also due to other conditions like hypertensive heart and left ventricular hypertrophy,” the authors stated.

Although they maintained that adding N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, which could be drawn from the same blood sample as hs-cTnT, might prove to be an even better but still simple strategy to identify low-risk patients, they praised the concept of combining biomarkers.

“If one’s wish is to identify truly low-risk individuals, then it appears that it takes two negative ASCVD biomarkers to make that wish come true,” the authors of the editorial concluded.

Relative to alternative methods of ASCVD risk assessment, measurement of these biomarkers might be useful for sparing patients from interventions, such as lipid lowering with statin therapy, being considered on the basis of conventional risk factors alone.

Dr. Jaffe said in an interview that he considers the two-biomarker assessment to be a useful tool in the low-risk population that he studied, but he does not consider this strategy as a substitute for other methods, such as those outline in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines that address the entire spectrum of risk, although work is planned to see if this approach can be extended to this broader group.*

“The data we have presented now is a good start and suggests that these two objective measures can identify those who are at very low risk and avoid adding individuals who may not be at as low risk if only one of the two tests is used,” Dr. Jaffe explained.

“Given there are now techniques to measure coronary calcium from any chest CT study, and that high sensitivity cardiac troponin is a relatively inexpensive test, putting them together should really help risk stratify patients,” he added.

When asked whether this approach will eventually replace conventional methods of ASCVD risk assessment, such as those proposed in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Circulation. 2019;140:e596-e646), he said maybe.

“The answer is that we will probe that question in our ongoing studies using continuous data in an attempt to evaluate how to use this approach to risk stratify larger numbers of individuals,” Dr. Jaffe replied.

The senior investigator, Dr. Jaffe, has consulting relationships with many pharmaceutical companies. The editorial authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sandoval Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:357-370.

*Correction, 7/27/20: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Jaffe's statement.