User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Many physicians live within their means and save, survey shows
Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.
Along with that somewhat prudent lifestyle comes savings, with
Those habits may help some navigate the financial upheaval in medicine brought about by COVID-19.
The survey responses on salary, debt, and net worth from more than 17,000 physicians spanning 30 specialties were collected prior to Feb. 11, before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.
The authors of the report note that by some estimates, primary care offices have seen a 55% drop in revenue because of the pandemic, and specialists have been hard hit with the suspension of most elective procedures.
Primary care offices are seeing fewer patients and are limiting hours, and some offices have been forced to close. Others have stemmed the losses by introducing telemedicine options.
Before COVID-19, average incomes had continued to rise – this year to $243,000 (a 2.5% boost from last year’s $237,000) for primary care physicians and $346,000 for specialists (a 1.5% rise from last year’s $341,000).
About half of physicians (42%) reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, and 8% reported a net worth of more than $5 million. Fifty percent of physicians had a net worth of less than $1 million.
Those figures varied greatly by specialty. Among specialists, orthopedists were most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%).
Conversely, 46% of family physicians and 44% of pediatricians reported that their net worth was under $500,000.
Gender gaps were also apparent in the data, especially at the highest levels. Twice as many male physicians (10%) as their female counterparts (5%) had a net worth of more than $5 million.
43% live below their means
Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.
Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.
More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.
“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.
A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.
Home size by specialty
Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).
Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.
At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.
About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.
Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.
Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.
Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.
Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.
Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.
For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
Cost-cutting strategies
Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.
Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.
A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”
“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.
A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.
Along with that somewhat prudent lifestyle comes savings, with
Those habits may help some navigate the financial upheaval in medicine brought about by COVID-19.
The survey responses on salary, debt, and net worth from more than 17,000 physicians spanning 30 specialties were collected prior to Feb. 11, before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.
The authors of the report note that by some estimates, primary care offices have seen a 55% drop in revenue because of the pandemic, and specialists have been hard hit with the suspension of most elective procedures.
Primary care offices are seeing fewer patients and are limiting hours, and some offices have been forced to close. Others have stemmed the losses by introducing telemedicine options.
Before COVID-19, average incomes had continued to rise – this year to $243,000 (a 2.5% boost from last year’s $237,000) for primary care physicians and $346,000 for specialists (a 1.5% rise from last year’s $341,000).
About half of physicians (42%) reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, and 8% reported a net worth of more than $5 million. Fifty percent of physicians had a net worth of less than $1 million.
Those figures varied greatly by specialty. Among specialists, orthopedists were most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%).
Conversely, 46% of family physicians and 44% of pediatricians reported that their net worth was under $500,000.
Gender gaps were also apparent in the data, especially at the highest levels. Twice as many male physicians (10%) as their female counterparts (5%) had a net worth of more than $5 million.
43% live below their means
Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.
Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.
More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.
“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.
A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.
Home size by specialty
Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).
Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.
At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.
About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.
Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.
Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.
Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.
Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.
Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.
For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
Cost-cutting strategies
Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.
Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.
A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”
“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.
A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.
Along with that somewhat prudent lifestyle comes savings, with
Those habits may help some navigate the financial upheaval in medicine brought about by COVID-19.
The survey responses on salary, debt, and net worth from more than 17,000 physicians spanning 30 specialties were collected prior to Feb. 11, before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.
The authors of the report note that by some estimates, primary care offices have seen a 55% drop in revenue because of the pandemic, and specialists have been hard hit with the suspension of most elective procedures.
Primary care offices are seeing fewer patients and are limiting hours, and some offices have been forced to close. Others have stemmed the losses by introducing telemedicine options.
Before COVID-19, average incomes had continued to rise – this year to $243,000 (a 2.5% boost from last year’s $237,000) for primary care physicians and $346,000 for specialists (a 1.5% rise from last year’s $341,000).
About half of physicians (42%) reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, and 8% reported a net worth of more than $5 million. Fifty percent of physicians had a net worth of less than $1 million.
Those figures varied greatly by specialty. Among specialists, orthopedists were most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%).
Conversely, 46% of family physicians and 44% of pediatricians reported that their net worth was under $500,000.
Gender gaps were also apparent in the data, especially at the highest levels. Twice as many male physicians (10%) as their female counterparts (5%) had a net worth of more than $5 million.
43% live below their means
Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.
Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.
More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.
“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.
A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.
Home size by specialty
Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).
Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.
At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.
About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.
Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.
Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.
Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.
Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.
Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.
For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
Cost-cutting strategies
Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.
Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.
A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”
“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.
A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Skin patterns of COVID-19 vary widely
according to Christine Ko, MD.
“Things are very fluid,” Dr. Ko, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “New studies are coming out daily. Due to the need for rapid dissemination, a lot of the studies are case reports, but there are some nice case series. Another caveat for the literature is that a lot of these cases were not necessarily confirmed with testing for SARS-CoV-2, but some were.”
Dr. Ko framed her remarks largely on a case collection survey of images and clinical data from 375 patients in Spain with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 that was published online April 29, 2020, in the British Journal of Dermatology (doi: 10.1111/bjd.19163). Cutaneous manifestations included early vesicular eruptions mainly on the trunk or limbs (9%), maculopapular (47%) to urticarial lesions (19%) mainly on the trunk, and acral areas of erythema sometimes with vesicles or erosion (perniosis-like) (19%) that seemed to be a later manifestation of COVID-19. Retiform purpura or necrosis (6%) was most concerning in terms of skin disease, with an associated with a mortality of 10%.
On histology, the early vesicular eruptions are typically marked by dyskeratotic keratinocytes, Dr. Ko said, while urticarial lesions are characterized by a mixed dermal infiltrate; maculopapular lesions were a broad category. “There are some case reports that show spongiotic dermatitis or parakeratosis with a lymphocytic infiltrate,” she said. “A caveat to keep in mind is that, although these patients may definitely have COVID-19 and be confirmed to have it by testing, hypersensitivity reactions may be due to the multiple medications they’re on.”
Patients can develop a spectrum of lesions that are suggestive of vascular damage or occlusion, Dr. Ko continued. Livedoid lesions may remain static and not eventuate into necrosis or purpura but will self-resolve. Purpuric lesions and acral gangrene have been described, and these lesions correspond to vascular occlusion on biopsy.
A later manifestation are the so-called “COVID toes” with a superficial and deep lymphocytic infiltrate, as published June 1, 2020, in JAAD Case Reports: (doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2020.04.011).
“There are patients in the literature that have slightly different pathology, with lymphocytic inflammation as well as occlusion of vessels,” Dr. Ko said. A paper published June 20, 2020, in the British Journal of Dermatology used immunohistochemical staining against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and biopsies of “COVID toes” had positive staining of endothelial cells, supporting the notion that “COVID toes” are a direct manifestation of viral infection (doi: 10.1111/bjd.19327).
“There’s a lot that we still don’t know, and some patterns are going to be outliers,” Dr. Ko concluded. “[As for] determining which skin manifestations are directly from coronavirus infection within the skin, more study is needed and likely time will tell.” She reported having no financial disclosures relevant to her talk.
according to Christine Ko, MD.
“Things are very fluid,” Dr. Ko, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “New studies are coming out daily. Due to the need for rapid dissemination, a lot of the studies are case reports, but there are some nice case series. Another caveat for the literature is that a lot of these cases were not necessarily confirmed with testing for SARS-CoV-2, but some were.”
Dr. Ko framed her remarks largely on a case collection survey of images and clinical data from 375 patients in Spain with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 that was published online April 29, 2020, in the British Journal of Dermatology (doi: 10.1111/bjd.19163). Cutaneous manifestations included early vesicular eruptions mainly on the trunk or limbs (9%), maculopapular (47%) to urticarial lesions (19%) mainly on the trunk, and acral areas of erythema sometimes with vesicles or erosion (perniosis-like) (19%) that seemed to be a later manifestation of COVID-19. Retiform purpura or necrosis (6%) was most concerning in terms of skin disease, with an associated with a mortality of 10%.
On histology, the early vesicular eruptions are typically marked by dyskeratotic keratinocytes, Dr. Ko said, while urticarial lesions are characterized by a mixed dermal infiltrate; maculopapular lesions were a broad category. “There are some case reports that show spongiotic dermatitis or parakeratosis with a lymphocytic infiltrate,” she said. “A caveat to keep in mind is that, although these patients may definitely have COVID-19 and be confirmed to have it by testing, hypersensitivity reactions may be due to the multiple medications they’re on.”
Patients can develop a spectrum of lesions that are suggestive of vascular damage or occlusion, Dr. Ko continued. Livedoid lesions may remain static and not eventuate into necrosis or purpura but will self-resolve. Purpuric lesions and acral gangrene have been described, and these lesions correspond to vascular occlusion on biopsy.
A later manifestation are the so-called “COVID toes” with a superficial and deep lymphocytic infiltrate, as published June 1, 2020, in JAAD Case Reports: (doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2020.04.011).
“There are patients in the literature that have slightly different pathology, with lymphocytic inflammation as well as occlusion of vessels,” Dr. Ko said. A paper published June 20, 2020, in the British Journal of Dermatology used immunohistochemical staining against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and biopsies of “COVID toes” had positive staining of endothelial cells, supporting the notion that “COVID toes” are a direct manifestation of viral infection (doi: 10.1111/bjd.19327).
“There’s a lot that we still don’t know, and some patterns are going to be outliers,” Dr. Ko concluded. “[As for] determining which skin manifestations are directly from coronavirus infection within the skin, more study is needed and likely time will tell.” She reported having no financial disclosures relevant to her talk.
according to Christine Ko, MD.
“Things are very fluid,” Dr. Ko, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “New studies are coming out daily. Due to the need for rapid dissemination, a lot of the studies are case reports, but there are some nice case series. Another caveat for the literature is that a lot of these cases were not necessarily confirmed with testing for SARS-CoV-2, but some were.”
Dr. Ko framed her remarks largely on a case collection survey of images and clinical data from 375 patients in Spain with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 that was published online April 29, 2020, in the British Journal of Dermatology (doi: 10.1111/bjd.19163). Cutaneous manifestations included early vesicular eruptions mainly on the trunk or limbs (9%), maculopapular (47%) to urticarial lesions (19%) mainly on the trunk, and acral areas of erythema sometimes with vesicles or erosion (perniosis-like) (19%) that seemed to be a later manifestation of COVID-19. Retiform purpura or necrosis (6%) was most concerning in terms of skin disease, with an associated with a mortality of 10%.
On histology, the early vesicular eruptions are typically marked by dyskeratotic keratinocytes, Dr. Ko said, while urticarial lesions are characterized by a mixed dermal infiltrate; maculopapular lesions were a broad category. “There are some case reports that show spongiotic dermatitis or parakeratosis with a lymphocytic infiltrate,” she said. “A caveat to keep in mind is that, although these patients may definitely have COVID-19 and be confirmed to have it by testing, hypersensitivity reactions may be due to the multiple medications they’re on.”
Patients can develop a spectrum of lesions that are suggestive of vascular damage or occlusion, Dr. Ko continued. Livedoid lesions may remain static and not eventuate into necrosis or purpura but will self-resolve. Purpuric lesions and acral gangrene have been described, and these lesions correspond to vascular occlusion on biopsy.
A later manifestation are the so-called “COVID toes” with a superficial and deep lymphocytic infiltrate, as published June 1, 2020, in JAAD Case Reports: (doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2020.04.011).
“There are patients in the literature that have slightly different pathology, with lymphocytic inflammation as well as occlusion of vessels,” Dr. Ko said. A paper published June 20, 2020, in the British Journal of Dermatology used immunohistochemical staining against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and biopsies of “COVID toes” had positive staining of endothelial cells, supporting the notion that “COVID toes” are a direct manifestation of viral infection (doi: 10.1111/bjd.19327).
“There’s a lot that we still don’t know, and some patterns are going to be outliers,” Dr. Ko concluded. “[As for] determining which skin manifestations are directly from coronavirus infection within the skin, more study is needed and likely time will tell.” She reported having no financial disclosures relevant to her talk.
FROM AAD 20
Daily Recap: Transgender patients turn to DIY treatments; ACIP plans priority vaccine groups
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
Ignored by doctors, transgender patients turn to DIY treatments
Without access to quality medical care, trans people around the world are seeking hormones from friends or through illegal online markets, even when the cost exceeds what it would through insurance. Although rare, others are resorting to self-surgery by cutting off their own penis and testicles or breasts.
Even with a doctor’s oversight, the health risks of transgender hormone therapy remain unclear, but without formal medical care, the do-it-yourself transition may be downright dangerous. To minimize these risks, some experts suggest health care reforms such as making it easier for primary care physicians to assess trans patients and prescribe hormones or creating specialized clinics where doctors prescribe hormones on demand.
Treating gender dysphoria should be just like treating a patient for any other condition. “It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to come into a primary care provider’s office with diabetes” and for the doctor to say “‘I can't actually treat you. Please leave,’” Zil Goldstein, associate medical director for transgender and gender non-binary health at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York City. Primary care providers need to see transgender care, she adds, “as a regular part of their practice.” Read more.
ACIP plans priority groups in advance of COVID-19 vaccine
Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said. Read more.
‘Nietzsche was wrong’: Past stressors do not create psychological resilience.
The famous quote from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger,” may not be true after all – at least when it comes to mental health.
Results of a new study show that individuals who have a history of a stressful life events are more likely to develop PTSD and/or major depressive disorder (MDD) following a major natural disaster than their counterparts who do not have such a history.
The investigation of more than a thousand Chilean residents – all of whom experienced one of the most powerful earthquakes in the country’s history – showed that the odds of developing postdisaster PTSD or MDD increased according to the number of predisaster stressors participants had experienced.
“At the clinical level, these findings help the clinician know which patients are more likely to need more intensive services,” said Stephen L. Buka, PhD. “And the more trauma and hardship they’ve experienced, the more attention they need and the less likely they’re going to be able to cope and manage on their own.” Read more.
High-impact training can build bone in older women
Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.
Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia. But new findings show that high-intensity resistance and impact training was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass.
“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” said Vanessa Yingling, PhD. Read more.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
Ignored by doctors, transgender patients turn to DIY treatments
Without access to quality medical care, trans people around the world are seeking hormones from friends or through illegal online markets, even when the cost exceeds what it would through insurance. Although rare, others are resorting to self-surgery by cutting off their own penis and testicles or breasts.
Even with a doctor’s oversight, the health risks of transgender hormone therapy remain unclear, but without formal medical care, the do-it-yourself transition may be downright dangerous. To minimize these risks, some experts suggest health care reforms such as making it easier for primary care physicians to assess trans patients and prescribe hormones or creating specialized clinics where doctors prescribe hormones on demand.
Treating gender dysphoria should be just like treating a patient for any other condition. “It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to come into a primary care provider’s office with diabetes” and for the doctor to say “‘I can't actually treat you. Please leave,’” Zil Goldstein, associate medical director for transgender and gender non-binary health at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York City. Primary care providers need to see transgender care, she adds, “as a regular part of their practice.” Read more.
ACIP plans priority groups in advance of COVID-19 vaccine
Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said. Read more.
‘Nietzsche was wrong’: Past stressors do not create psychological resilience.
The famous quote from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger,” may not be true after all – at least when it comes to mental health.
Results of a new study show that individuals who have a history of a stressful life events are more likely to develop PTSD and/or major depressive disorder (MDD) following a major natural disaster than their counterparts who do not have such a history.
The investigation of more than a thousand Chilean residents – all of whom experienced one of the most powerful earthquakes in the country’s history – showed that the odds of developing postdisaster PTSD or MDD increased according to the number of predisaster stressors participants had experienced.
“At the clinical level, these findings help the clinician know which patients are more likely to need more intensive services,” said Stephen L. Buka, PhD. “And the more trauma and hardship they’ve experienced, the more attention they need and the less likely they’re going to be able to cope and manage on their own.” Read more.
High-impact training can build bone in older women
Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.
Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia. But new findings show that high-intensity resistance and impact training was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass.
“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” said Vanessa Yingling, PhD. Read more.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
Ignored by doctors, transgender patients turn to DIY treatments
Without access to quality medical care, trans people around the world are seeking hormones from friends or through illegal online markets, even when the cost exceeds what it would through insurance. Although rare, others are resorting to self-surgery by cutting off their own penis and testicles or breasts.
Even with a doctor’s oversight, the health risks of transgender hormone therapy remain unclear, but without formal medical care, the do-it-yourself transition may be downright dangerous. To minimize these risks, some experts suggest health care reforms such as making it easier for primary care physicians to assess trans patients and prescribe hormones or creating specialized clinics where doctors prescribe hormones on demand.
Treating gender dysphoria should be just like treating a patient for any other condition. “It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to come into a primary care provider’s office with diabetes” and for the doctor to say “‘I can't actually treat you. Please leave,’” Zil Goldstein, associate medical director for transgender and gender non-binary health at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York City. Primary care providers need to see transgender care, she adds, “as a regular part of their practice.” Read more.
ACIP plans priority groups in advance of COVID-19 vaccine
Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said. Read more.
‘Nietzsche was wrong’: Past stressors do not create psychological resilience.
The famous quote from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger,” may not be true after all – at least when it comes to mental health.
Results of a new study show that individuals who have a history of a stressful life events are more likely to develop PTSD and/or major depressive disorder (MDD) following a major natural disaster than their counterparts who do not have such a history.
The investigation of more than a thousand Chilean residents – all of whom experienced one of the most powerful earthquakes in the country’s history – showed that the odds of developing postdisaster PTSD or MDD increased according to the number of predisaster stressors participants had experienced.
“At the clinical level, these findings help the clinician know which patients are more likely to need more intensive services,” said Stephen L. Buka, PhD. “And the more trauma and hardship they’ve experienced, the more attention they need and the less likely they’re going to be able to cope and manage on their own.” Read more.
High-impact training can build bone in older women
Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.
Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia. But new findings show that high-intensity resistance and impact training was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass.
“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” said Vanessa Yingling, PhD. Read more.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
How racism contributes to the effects of SARS-CoV-2
It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.
Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.
A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?
That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.
Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.
As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.
As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.
Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.
With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.
In my limited time in Brooklyn, taking care of almost exclusively black and Hispanic patients, I saw one physician assistant and one nurse who were black; one nurse practitioner was Hispanic. This mismatch is sadly common. Although 13% of the population of the United States is black, only 5% of physicians in the United States are black. Hispanic people, who make up 18% of the US population, are only 6% of physicians. This undoubtedly contributes to poorer outcomes for underrepresented minority patients who have a hard time finding physicians who look like them and understand them.
So while SARS-CoV-2 may not discriminate, the effects it has on patients depends on all of these other factors. If it flies through the air and lands on the mucosal tract of a person who works from home, has effective health insurance and a primary care physician, and lives in a community with no toxic exposures, that person may be more likely to kick it out before it has a chance to settle in. The reason we have such a huge disparity in outcomes related to COVID-19 by race is that a person meeting that description is less likely to be black or Hispanic. Race is not an independent risk factor; structural racism is.
When I drive by the mall that is now open or the restaurants that are now open with indoor dining, my heart rate quickens just a bit with anxiety. The pandemic fatigue people are experiencing is leading them to act in unsafe ways – gathering with more people, not wearing masks, not keeping a safe distance. I worry about everyone, sure, but I really worry about black and Hispanic people who are most vulnerable as a result of everyone else’s refusal to follow guidelines.
Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.
It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.
Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.
A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?
That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.
Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.
As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.
As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.
Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.
With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.
In my limited time in Brooklyn, taking care of almost exclusively black and Hispanic patients, I saw one physician assistant and one nurse who were black; one nurse practitioner was Hispanic. This mismatch is sadly common. Although 13% of the population of the United States is black, only 5% of physicians in the United States are black. Hispanic people, who make up 18% of the US population, are only 6% of physicians. This undoubtedly contributes to poorer outcomes for underrepresented minority patients who have a hard time finding physicians who look like them and understand them.
So while SARS-CoV-2 may not discriminate, the effects it has on patients depends on all of these other factors. If it flies through the air and lands on the mucosal tract of a person who works from home, has effective health insurance and a primary care physician, and lives in a community with no toxic exposures, that person may be more likely to kick it out before it has a chance to settle in. The reason we have such a huge disparity in outcomes related to COVID-19 by race is that a person meeting that description is less likely to be black or Hispanic. Race is not an independent risk factor; structural racism is.
When I drive by the mall that is now open or the restaurants that are now open with indoor dining, my heart rate quickens just a bit with anxiety. The pandemic fatigue people are experiencing is leading them to act in unsafe ways – gathering with more people, not wearing masks, not keeping a safe distance. I worry about everyone, sure, but I really worry about black and Hispanic people who are most vulnerable as a result of everyone else’s refusal to follow guidelines.
Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.
It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.
Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.
A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?
That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.
Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.
As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.
As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.
Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.
With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.
In my limited time in Brooklyn, taking care of almost exclusively black and Hispanic patients, I saw one physician assistant and one nurse who were black; one nurse practitioner was Hispanic. This mismatch is sadly common. Although 13% of the population of the United States is black, only 5% of physicians in the United States are black. Hispanic people, who make up 18% of the US population, are only 6% of physicians. This undoubtedly contributes to poorer outcomes for underrepresented minority patients who have a hard time finding physicians who look like them and understand them.
So while SARS-CoV-2 may not discriminate, the effects it has on patients depends on all of these other factors. If it flies through the air and lands on the mucosal tract of a person who works from home, has effective health insurance and a primary care physician, and lives in a community with no toxic exposures, that person may be more likely to kick it out before it has a chance to settle in. The reason we have such a huge disparity in outcomes related to COVID-19 by race is that a person meeting that description is less likely to be black or Hispanic. Race is not an independent risk factor; structural racism is.
When I drive by the mall that is now open or the restaurants that are now open with indoor dining, my heart rate quickens just a bit with anxiety. The pandemic fatigue people are experiencing is leading them to act in unsafe ways – gathering with more people, not wearing masks, not keeping a safe distance. I worry about everyone, sure, but I really worry about black and Hispanic people who are most vulnerable as a result of everyone else’s refusal to follow guidelines.
Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.
ACIP plans priority groups in advance of COVID-19 vaccine
according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”
However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.
To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.
The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.
However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.
Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.
Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.
Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.
Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”
However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.
To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.
The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.
However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.
Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.
Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.
Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.
Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”
However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.
To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.
The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.
However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.
Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.
Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.
Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.
Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Findings of most heart failure trials reported late or not at all
A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.
Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.
“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.
Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.
The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.
There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”
Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).
Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.
Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.
Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.
The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.
The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.
“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.
So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.
“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.
The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.
A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.
Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.
“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.
Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.
The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.
There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”
Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).
Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.
Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.
Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.
The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.
The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.
“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.
So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.
“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.
The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.
A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.
Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.
“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.
Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.
The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.
There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”
Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).
Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.
Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.
Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.
The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.
The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.
“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.
So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.
“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.
The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Daily Recap: Higher risk of severe COVID-19 seen in pregnancy, primary care practices at risk
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
Pregnant women at higher risk for severe COVID-19
Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.
CDC researchers said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.
“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote. Read more.
Going out of business: Primary care practices at risk
In a recently published editorial, Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argued that primary care is in deep trouble, its long-standing financial problems exacerbated by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. In an interview with Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, a family physician, Dr. Frieden discussed the future of primary care.
Here is a sample of Dr. Frieden’s observations:
“When I’ve looked around the United States, I’ve been extremely concerned about both the risk that primary care practitioners are subjected to in their everyday practice and the economic risk that we could lose many of our primary care practices around the country. It’s really striking to see that the number of visits has plummeted. Because of our payment structure, that means incomes have plummeted. We’re hearing about doctors’ offices getting boarded up and shuttering. As I write in the piece, it’s one thing for a theater or a restaurant or another important community entity to shut because of economic downturn, and these are real losses, but to lose their only primary care practice or one of the few in an area really is a matter of life and death for many communities.” Read more.
Surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests
The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that placed a huge burden on first responders, according to a new analysis.
During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.
In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.
“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.
The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.
Read more.
Fenfluramine approved for Dravet syndrome
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved fenfluramine (Fintepla, Zogenix) oral solution, a Schedule IV controlled substance, for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in children age 2 years and older.
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset epilepsy characterized by frequent, drug-resistant convulsive seizures that may contribute to intellectual disability and impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition, as well as an increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.
Dravet syndrome takes a “tremendous toll on both patients and their families. Fintepla offers an additional effective treatment option for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. Read more.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
Pregnant women at higher risk for severe COVID-19
Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.
CDC researchers said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.
“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote. Read more.
Going out of business: Primary care practices at risk
In a recently published editorial, Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argued that primary care is in deep trouble, its long-standing financial problems exacerbated by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. In an interview with Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, a family physician, Dr. Frieden discussed the future of primary care.
Here is a sample of Dr. Frieden’s observations:
“When I’ve looked around the United States, I’ve been extremely concerned about both the risk that primary care practitioners are subjected to in their everyday practice and the economic risk that we could lose many of our primary care practices around the country. It’s really striking to see that the number of visits has plummeted. Because of our payment structure, that means incomes have plummeted. We’re hearing about doctors’ offices getting boarded up and shuttering. As I write in the piece, it’s one thing for a theater or a restaurant or another important community entity to shut because of economic downturn, and these are real losses, but to lose their only primary care practice or one of the few in an area really is a matter of life and death for many communities.” Read more.
Surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests
The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that placed a huge burden on first responders, according to a new analysis.
During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.
In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.
“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.
The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.
Read more.
Fenfluramine approved for Dravet syndrome
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved fenfluramine (Fintepla, Zogenix) oral solution, a Schedule IV controlled substance, for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in children age 2 years and older.
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset epilepsy characterized by frequent, drug-resistant convulsive seizures that may contribute to intellectual disability and impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition, as well as an increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.
Dravet syndrome takes a “tremendous toll on both patients and their families. Fintepla offers an additional effective treatment option for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. Read more.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:
Pregnant women at higher risk for severe COVID-19
Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.
CDC researchers said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.
“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote. Read more.
Going out of business: Primary care practices at risk
In a recently published editorial, Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argued that primary care is in deep trouble, its long-standing financial problems exacerbated by the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. In an interview with Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, a family physician, Dr. Frieden discussed the future of primary care.
Here is a sample of Dr. Frieden’s observations:
“When I’ve looked around the United States, I’ve been extremely concerned about both the risk that primary care practitioners are subjected to in their everyday practice and the economic risk that we could lose many of our primary care practices around the country. It’s really striking to see that the number of visits has plummeted. Because of our payment structure, that means incomes have plummeted. We’re hearing about doctors’ offices getting boarded up and shuttering. As I write in the piece, it’s one thing for a theater or a restaurant or another important community entity to shut because of economic downturn, and these are real losses, but to lose their only primary care practice or one of the few in an area really is a matter of life and death for many communities.” Read more.
Surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests
The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that placed a huge burden on first responders, according to a new analysis.
During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.
In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.
“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.
The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.
Read more.
Fenfluramine approved for Dravet syndrome
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved fenfluramine (Fintepla, Zogenix) oral solution, a Schedule IV controlled substance, for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome in children age 2 years and older.
Dravet syndrome is a rare childhood-onset epilepsy characterized by frequent, drug-resistant convulsive seizures that may contribute to intellectual disability and impairments in motor control, behavior, and cognition, as well as an increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.
Dravet syndrome takes a “tremendous toll on both patients and their families. Fintepla offers an additional effective treatment option for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet syndrome,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release. Read more.
For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.
How to reboot elective CV procedures after COVID-19 lockdown
With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.
To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.
“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit
The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.
The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.
The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.
Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.
“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.
Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.
“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
Rebooting electrophysiology services
Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.
The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.
“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.
Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.
They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.
The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.
“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.
A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.
“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.
“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring
In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.
Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.
The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.
He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”
Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.
Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.
To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.
“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit
The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.
The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.
The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.
Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.
“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.
Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.
“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
Rebooting electrophysiology services
Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.
The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.
“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.
Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.
They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.
The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.
“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.
A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.
“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.
“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring
In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.
Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.
The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.
He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”
Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.
Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.
To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.
“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit
The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.
The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.
The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.
Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.
“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.
Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.
“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
Rebooting electrophysiology services
Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.
The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.
“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.
Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.
They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.
The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.
“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.
A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.
“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.
“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring
In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.
Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.
The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.
He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.
He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”
Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.
Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: ‘dramatic’ surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in NYC
The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.
During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.
In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.
“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.
The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.
New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.
To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.
Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).
On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.
Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.
A more vulnerable group
Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).
Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.
“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.
Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.
“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O2 saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
Unsung heroes
In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19.
“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.
First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.
As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.
They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.
“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.
This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.
During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.
In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.
“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.
The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.
New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.
To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.
Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).
On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.
Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.
A more vulnerable group
Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).
Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.
“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.
Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.
“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O2 saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
Unsung heroes
In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19.
“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.
First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.
As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.
They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.
“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.
This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.
During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.
In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.
“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.
The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.
New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.
To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.
Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).
On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.
Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.
A more vulnerable group
Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).
Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.
“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.
Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.
“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O2 saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
Unsung heroes
In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19.
“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.
First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.
As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.
They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.
“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.
This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dapagliflozin benefits low-EF heart failure regardless of diuretic dose: DAPA-HF
The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.
A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.
Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.
As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.
SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.
“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.
“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.
Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.
Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”
With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”
There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.
Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.
“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.
The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.
He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”
Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.
For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.
The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”
Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”
Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.
Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”
A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.
The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.
The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall
Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”
Renal adverse events were similarly prevalent in the two treatment groups, as were such events leading to treatment discontinuation. But serious renal events were less common in the dapagliflozin group (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .009), as was investigator-reported serious acute kidney injury (1.0% vs 1.9%; P = .007).
“Overall, renal events were infrequent,” Dr. Jackson said, and “because of the small number of events, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of dapagliflozin on renal function according to diuretic-dose subgroups.”
Still, she said, worsening renal function was less common on dapagliflozin in three of the four groups by diuretic dosage; the exception was the less than 40 mg FE group, “but the absolute difference in this group was only two events.”
There seem to be dapagliflozin mechanisms “underneath the surface that need to be unraveled,” Dr. Doehner said as discussant, processes that are favorable for the treatment of HFrEF in which “diuretics play no big role.”
Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.
A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.
Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.
As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.
SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.
“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.
“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.
Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.
Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”
With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”
There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.
Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.
“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.
The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.
He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”
Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.
For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.
The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”
Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”
Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.
Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”
A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.
The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.
The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall
Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”
Renal adverse events were similarly prevalent in the two treatment groups, as were such events leading to treatment discontinuation. But serious renal events were less common in the dapagliflozin group (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .009), as was investigator-reported serious acute kidney injury (1.0% vs 1.9%; P = .007).
“Overall, renal events were infrequent,” Dr. Jackson said, and “because of the small number of events, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of dapagliflozin on renal function according to diuretic-dose subgroups.”
Still, she said, worsening renal function was less common on dapagliflozin in three of the four groups by diuretic dosage; the exception was the less than 40 mg FE group, “but the absolute difference in this group was only two events.”
There seem to be dapagliflozin mechanisms “underneath the surface that need to be unraveled,” Dr. Doehner said as discussant, processes that are favorable for the treatment of HFrEF in which “diuretics play no big role.”
Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.
A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.
Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.
As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.
SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.
“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.
“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.
Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.
Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”
With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”
There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.
Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.
“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.
The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.
He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”
Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.
For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.
The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”
Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”
Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.
Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”
A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.
The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.
The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall
Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”
Renal adverse events were similarly prevalent in the two treatment groups, as were such events leading to treatment discontinuation. But serious renal events were less common in the dapagliflozin group (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .009), as was investigator-reported serious acute kidney injury (1.0% vs 1.9%; P = .007).
“Overall, renal events were infrequent,” Dr. Jackson said, and “because of the small number of events, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of dapagliflozin on renal function according to diuretic-dose subgroups.”
Still, she said, worsening renal function was less common on dapagliflozin in three of the four groups by diuretic dosage; the exception was the less than 40 mg FE group, “but the absolute difference in this group was only two events.”
There seem to be dapagliflozin mechanisms “underneath the surface that need to be unraveled,” Dr. Doehner said as discussant, processes that are favorable for the treatment of HFrEF in which “diuretics play no big role.”
Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC HEART FAILURE 2020