MDedge Emergency Medicine

Transplantation of hearts donated after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with short-term clinical outcomes similar to those of hearts donated after brain death (DBD), except for transient posttransplant right heart dysfunction, a single-center analysis suggests.

The right-heart dysfunction resolved by 3 weeks post transplant, and recipient mortality was similar for those receiving DCD and DBD, which is considered standard of care (SOC).

Furthermore, the median waiting list time was significantly shorter for DCD recipients than for SOC recipients (17 vs. 70 days).

The authors suggest that use of DCD hearts could expand the donor pool by as much as 30%.

“Now that we and others have demonstrated the safety of this technique, I believe it is our obligation as a transplant community to use these organs and not allow them to be wasted,” David A. D’Alessandro, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I will caution that DCD heart transplantation is labor intensive, and there is a learning curve which can potentially put patients at risk,” he added. “It is vitally important, therefore, that we learn from each other’s experiences to flatten this curve.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Similar outcomes

Dr. D’Alessandro and colleagues compared the hemodynamic and clinical profiles of 47 DCD hearts with 166 SOC hearts implanted at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2016 and 2022. DCD hearts were maintained with use of a proprietary warm perfusion circuit organ care system (OCS, TransMedics).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except the DCD heart recipients were younger (mean age, 55 vs. 59); they were less likely to be an inpatient at the time of transplant (26% vs. 49%); and they had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (1.73 WU vs. 2.26 WU).

The median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter than for SOC hearts (17 vs. 70 days). However, there was a higher, though not statistically significant, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 24 hours post transplant with DCD (10.6% vs. SOC 3.6%), leading five DCD recipients (10.6%) and nine SOC recipients (5.4%) to receive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD vs. SOC recipients 1 week post transplant, with higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg); higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 vs. 0.57); and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 vs. 2.52).

However, by 3 weeks post transplant, right heart function was similar between the groups, as was mortality at 30 days (0 vs. 2%) and 1 year (3% vs. 8%).

Furthermore, hospital length of stay following transplant, intensive care unit length of stay, ICU readmissions, and 30-day readmissions were similar between the groups.

“We and others will continue to push the boundaries of this technique to understand if we can safely extend the warm ischemic time, which could make additional organs available,” Dr. D’Alessandro said. “We will also be exploring additional ways to monitor and assess organ health and viability ex situ and potential avenues of treatment which could repair and optimize organ function.

“A successful DCD heart transplant program requires institutional and team commitment,” he added, “and there are clinical nuances which should be appreciated to minimize patient risks associated with the obligate learning curve.”

Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York, author of a related editorial, concluded that heart donation after circulatory death “promises significant expansion of the donor pool and will lead to many lives saved” and that “the current investigation is a timely and important contribution to this effort”.

However, he noted, “it must be acknowledged that donation after cardiac death has evoked significant controversy regarding the ethics of this approach,” particularly when using a technique called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), in which, after declaration of death and ligation of cerebral vessels, the heart is resuscitated in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as opposed to the proprietary warm perfusion OCS used in this study.

“Central to this discussion is the definition of death and its irreversibility,” Dr. Jorde noted. “In contrast to DBD, where brain death protocols are well established and accepted by societies across the globe, DCD protocol rules, e.g., standoff times after complete cessation of circulation, continue to vary even within national jurisdictions. Such variability and incomplete standardization of practice is particularly important when the organ is resuscitated in situ using normothermic regional perfusion.

“The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation has recently provided a framework within which donation after cardiac death, with or without the use of NRP, can be conducted to comply with ethical and legal norms and regulations, acknowledging that such norms and regulations may differ between societies,” he wrote. “To advance the field, and to ensure ongoing trust in the transplantation system, it is of critical importance that such discussions are held publicly and transparently.”
 

More ‘dry runs’

“Donor heart allographs are safe for our patients with heart failure if procured and transplanted in an organized and protocolized manner,” Philip J. Spencer, MD, a cardiovascular and transplant surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “As the techniques are adopted globally, our patients will benefit.”

Nevertheless, like Dr. D’Alessandro, he noted that procurement of DCD hearts is more labor intensive. “A program and its patients must be willing to accept a higher number of ‘dry runs,’ which occurs when the team is sent for an organ and the donor does not progress to circulatory death in a time and manner appropriate for safe organ recovery.

“There is no doubt that being open to these organs will increase the patient’s chances of receiving a donor heart in a shorter period of time,” he said. “However, the experience of a dry run, or multiple, can be emotionally and financially stressful for the patient and the program.”

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Transplantation of hearts donated after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with short-term clinical outcomes similar to those of hearts donated after brain death (DBD), except for transient posttransplant right heart dysfunction, a single-center analysis suggests.

The right-heart dysfunction resolved by 3 weeks post transplant, and recipient mortality was similar for those receiving DCD and DBD, which is considered standard of care (SOC).

Furthermore, the median waiting list time was significantly shorter for DCD recipients than for SOC recipients (17 vs. 70 days).

The authors suggest that use of DCD hearts could expand the donor pool by as much as 30%.

“Now that we and others have demonstrated the safety of this technique, I believe it is our obligation as a transplant community to use these organs and not allow them to be wasted,” David A. D’Alessandro, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I will caution that DCD heart transplantation is labor intensive, and there is a learning curve which can potentially put patients at risk,” he added. “It is vitally important, therefore, that we learn from each other’s experiences to flatten this curve.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Similar outcomes

Dr. D’Alessandro and colleagues compared the hemodynamic and clinical profiles of 47 DCD hearts with 166 SOC hearts implanted at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2016 and 2022. DCD hearts were maintained with use of a proprietary warm perfusion circuit organ care system (OCS, TransMedics).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except the DCD heart recipients were younger (mean age, 55 vs. 59); they were less likely to be an inpatient at the time of transplant (26% vs. 49%); and they had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (1.73 WU vs. 2.26 WU).

The median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter than for SOC hearts (17 vs. 70 days). However, there was a higher, though not statistically significant, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 24 hours post transplant with DCD (10.6% vs. SOC 3.6%), leading five DCD recipients (10.6%) and nine SOC recipients (5.4%) to receive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD vs. SOC recipients 1 week post transplant, with higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg); higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 vs. 0.57); and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 vs. 2.52).

However, by 3 weeks post transplant, right heart function was similar between the groups, as was mortality at 30 days (0 vs. 2%) and 1 year (3% vs. 8%).

Furthermore, hospital length of stay following transplant, intensive care unit length of stay, ICU readmissions, and 30-day readmissions were similar between the groups.

“We and others will continue to push the boundaries of this technique to understand if we can safely extend the warm ischemic time, which could make additional organs available,” Dr. D’Alessandro said. “We will also be exploring additional ways to monitor and assess organ health and viability ex situ and potential avenues of treatment which could repair and optimize organ function.

“A successful DCD heart transplant program requires institutional and team commitment,” he added, “and there are clinical nuances which should be appreciated to minimize patient risks associated with the obligate learning curve.”

Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York, author of a related editorial, concluded that heart donation after circulatory death “promises significant expansion of the donor pool and will lead to many lives saved” and that “the current investigation is a timely and important contribution to this effort”.

However, he noted, “it must be acknowledged that donation after cardiac death has evoked significant controversy regarding the ethics of this approach,” particularly when using a technique called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), in which, after declaration of death and ligation of cerebral vessels, the heart is resuscitated in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as opposed to the proprietary warm perfusion OCS used in this study.

“Central to this discussion is the definition of death and its irreversibility,” Dr. Jorde noted. “In contrast to DBD, where brain death protocols are well established and accepted by societies across the globe, DCD protocol rules, e.g., standoff times after complete cessation of circulation, continue to vary even within national jurisdictions. Such variability and incomplete standardization of practice is particularly important when the organ is resuscitated in situ using normothermic regional perfusion.

“The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation has recently provided a framework within which donation after cardiac death, with or without the use of NRP, can be conducted to comply with ethical and legal norms and regulations, acknowledging that such norms and regulations may differ between societies,” he wrote. “To advance the field, and to ensure ongoing trust in the transplantation system, it is of critical importance that such discussions are held publicly and transparently.”
 

More ‘dry runs’

“Donor heart allographs are safe for our patients with heart failure if procured and transplanted in an organized and protocolized manner,” Philip J. Spencer, MD, a cardiovascular and transplant surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “As the techniques are adopted globally, our patients will benefit.”

Nevertheless, like Dr. D’Alessandro, he noted that procurement of DCD hearts is more labor intensive. “A program and its patients must be willing to accept a higher number of ‘dry runs,’ which occurs when the team is sent for an organ and the donor does not progress to circulatory death in a time and manner appropriate for safe organ recovery.

“There is no doubt that being open to these organs will increase the patient’s chances of receiving a donor heart in a shorter period of time,” he said. “However, the experience of a dry run, or multiple, can be emotionally and financially stressful for the patient and the program.”

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Transplantation of hearts donated after circulatory death (DCD) is associated with short-term clinical outcomes similar to those of hearts donated after brain death (DBD), except for transient posttransplant right heart dysfunction, a single-center analysis suggests.

The right-heart dysfunction resolved by 3 weeks post transplant, and recipient mortality was similar for those receiving DCD and DBD, which is considered standard of care (SOC).

Furthermore, the median waiting list time was significantly shorter for DCD recipients than for SOC recipients (17 vs. 70 days).

The authors suggest that use of DCD hearts could expand the donor pool by as much as 30%.

“Now that we and others have demonstrated the safety of this technique, I believe it is our obligation as a transplant community to use these organs and not allow them to be wasted,” David A. D’Alessandro, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“I will caution that DCD heart transplantation is labor intensive, and there is a learning curve which can potentially put patients at risk,” he added. “It is vitally important, therefore, that we learn from each other’s experiences to flatten this curve.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Similar outcomes

Dr. D’Alessandro and colleagues compared the hemodynamic and clinical profiles of 47 DCD hearts with 166 SOC hearts implanted at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2016 and 2022. DCD hearts were maintained with use of a proprietary warm perfusion circuit organ care system (OCS, TransMedics).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except the DCD heart recipients were younger (mean age, 55 vs. 59); they were less likely to be an inpatient at the time of transplant (26% vs. 49%); and they had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (1.73 WU vs. 2.26 WU).

The median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter than for SOC hearts (17 vs. 70 days). However, there was a higher, though not statistically significant, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction at 24 hours post transplant with DCD (10.6% vs. SOC 3.6%), leading five DCD recipients (10.6%) and nine SOC recipients (5.4%) to receive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD vs. SOC recipients 1 week post transplant, with higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg); higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 vs. 0.57); and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 vs. 2.52).

However, by 3 weeks post transplant, right heart function was similar between the groups, as was mortality at 30 days (0 vs. 2%) and 1 year (3% vs. 8%).

Furthermore, hospital length of stay following transplant, intensive care unit length of stay, ICU readmissions, and 30-day readmissions were similar between the groups.

“We and others will continue to push the boundaries of this technique to understand if we can safely extend the warm ischemic time, which could make additional organs available,” Dr. D’Alessandro said. “We will also be exploring additional ways to monitor and assess organ health and viability ex situ and potential avenues of treatment which could repair and optimize organ function.

“A successful DCD heart transplant program requires institutional and team commitment,” he added, “and there are clinical nuances which should be appreciated to minimize patient risks associated with the obligate learning curve.”

Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center in New York, author of a related editorial, concluded that heart donation after circulatory death “promises significant expansion of the donor pool and will lead to many lives saved” and that “the current investigation is a timely and important contribution to this effort”.

However, he noted, “it must be acknowledged that donation after cardiac death has evoked significant controversy regarding the ethics of this approach,” particularly when using a technique called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), in which, after declaration of death and ligation of cerebral vessels, the heart is resuscitated in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as opposed to the proprietary warm perfusion OCS used in this study.

“Central to this discussion is the definition of death and its irreversibility,” Dr. Jorde noted. “In contrast to DBD, where brain death protocols are well established and accepted by societies across the globe, DCD protocol rules, e.g., standoff times after complete cessation of circulation, continue to vary even within national jurisdictions. Such variability and incomplete standardization of practice is particularly important when the organ is resuscitated in situ using normothermic regional perfusion.

“The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation has recently provided a framework within which donation after cardiac death, with or without the use of NRP, can be conducted to comply with ethical and legal norms and regulations, acknowledging that such norms and regulations may differ between societies,” he wrote. “To advance the field, and to ensure ongoing trust in the transplantation system, it is of critical importance that such discussions are held publicly and transparently.”
 

More ‘dry runs’

“Donor heart allographs are safe for our patients with heart failure if procured and transplanted in an organized and protocolized manner,” Philip J. Spencer, MD, a cardiovascular and transplant surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “As the techniques are adopted globally, our patients will benefit.”

Nevertheless, like Dr. D’Alessandro, he noted that procurement of DCD hearts is more labor intensive. “A program and its patients must be willing to accept a higher number of ‘dry runs,’ which occurs when the team is sent for an organ and the donor does not progress to circulatory death in a time and manner appropriate for safe organ recovery.

“There is no doubt that being open to these organs will increase the patient’s chances of receiving a donor heart in a shorter period of time,” he said. “However, the experience of a dry run, or multiple, can be emotionally and financially stressful for the patient and the program.”

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Starting treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with extended-release naltrexone injections in the emergency department produced a dramatic reduction in alcohol consumption, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The results show the feasibility of such a program and underscore the importance of the ED in combating AUD, said the researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco.

“According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 18% of ED visits had alcohol as a contributing factor – the volume of alcohol-related ED visits has been climbing every year, and it is a significant public health problem,” said Maria Raven, MD, MPH, professor of emergency medicine at UCSF. “Right now, we do very little for people who come to the ED with AUD, so it is a missed opportunity to intervene, especially given the volume of visits we see and that our patient population is one that often has significant barriers to accessing outpatient treatment.”

The findings come from a 12-week, prospective, single-arm study of ED patients who were actively drinking adults with known or suspected AUD and who had positive scores on a screening test. Of 179 patients who were approached, 32 agreed to enroll; the enrollment yield was 18%. Participants were given monthly extended-release naltrexone and case management services.

Of the 32 participants, 25 completed all their study visits and 22 (69%) continued taking naltrexone after the 12 weeks.

The researchers said the results surprised them. The average daily alcohol consumption at baseline was 7.6 drinks a day, and it fell by 7.5 drinks a day – in other words, to almost no consumption.

“The median alcohol consumption when measured over the last 2 weeks of the study was zero,” Dr. Raven said. “This doesn’t mean everyone was at zero, but this was the median and reflects that many participants stopped drinking altogether. We were pleasantly surprised by this. I don’t know that we thought so many people who participated would actually fully abstain.”

On the Kemp Quality of Life Scale – with scores from 1 to 7, with 1 being “life is very distressing,” 4 being “life is so-so,” and 7 being “life is great” – the average baseline score was 3.6. That score rose by 1.2 points by the study’s end.

Dr. Raven said she hoped more would enroll but that “a number of people actually did not want the injection or were not ready to think about stopping.” Still, the 18% enrollment is “a major improvement,” considering that no attempt was made to initiate treatment with naltrexone prior to the study. Oral naltrexone, rather than the injection, could be offered to improve participation, but oral naltrexone has to be taken daily.

She said a larger study is planned at UCSF and that other institutions are interested in starting a similar program.

“When someone is in the ED for an AUD-related issue, it can serve as a turning point for them in some cases,” she said.

Erik S. Anderson, MD, associate research director at Oakland, Calif.–based Alameda Health System, who has studied naltrexone in the ED, said the findings dovetail with what his team has found at his center. He added that psychosocial support is important as well and that his team has found that navigation services are the most important factor in connecting patients with follow-up care – even more so than providing medications.

“In my mind, this is a situation where we have treatment options and approaches that work, and it’s really about implementing these services in a novel care setting,” he said. “ED patients are at higher risk of complications for AUD simply because they are in the ED in the first place – initiating AUD treatment in this setting is the right thing to do.”

Dr. Raven and Dr. Anderson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Starting treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with extended-release naltrexone injections in the emergency department produced a dramatic reduction in alcohol consumption, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The results show the feasibility of such a program and underscore the importance of the ED in combating AUD, said the researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco.

“According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 18% of ED visits had alcohol as a contributing factor – the volume of alcohol-related ED visits has been climbing every year, and it is a significant public health problem,” said Maria Raven, MD, MPH, professor of emergency medicine at UCSF. “Right now, we do very little for people who come to the ED with AUD, so it is a missed opportunity to intervene, especially given the volume of visits we see and that our patient population is one that often has significant barriers to accessing outpatient treatment.”

The findings come from a 12-week, prospective, single-arm study of ED patients who were actively drinking adults with known or suspected AUD and who had positive scores on a screening test. Of 179 patients who were approached, 32 agreed to enroll; the enrollment yield was 18%. Participants were given monthly extended-release naltrexone and case management services.

Of the 32 participants, 25 completed all their study visits and 22 (69%) continued taking naltrexone after the 12 weeks.

The researchers said the results surprised them. The average daily alcohol consumption at baseline was 7.6 drinks a day, and it fell by 7.5 drinks a day – in other words, to almost no consumption.

“The median alcohol consumption when measured over the last 2 weeks of the study was zero,” Dr. Raven said. “This doesn’t mean everyone was at zero, but this was the median and reflects that many participants stopped drinking altogether. We were pleasantly surprised by this. I don’t know that we thought so many people who participated would actually fully abstain.”

On the Kemp Quality of Life Scale – with scores from 1 to 7, with 1 being “life is very distressing,” 4 being “life is so-so,” and 7 being “life is great” – the average baseline score was 3.6. That score rose by 1.2 points by the study’s end.

Dr. Raven said she hoped more would enroll but that “a number of people actually did not want the injection or were not ready to think about stopping.” Still, the 18% enrollment is “a major improvement,” considering that no attempt was made to initiate treatment with naltrexone prior to the study. Oral naltrexone, rather than the injection, could be offered to improve participation, but oral naltrexone has to be taken daily.

She said a larger study is planned at UCSF and that other institutions are interested in starting a similar program.

“When someone is in the ED for an AUD-related issue, it can serve as a turning point for them in some cases,” she said.

Erik S. Anderson, MD, associate research director at Oakland, Calif.–based Alameda Health System, who has studied naltrexone in the ED, said the findings dovetail with what his team has found at his center. He added that psychosocial support is important as well and that his team has found that navigation services are the most important factor in connecting patients with follow-up care – even more so than providing medications.

“In my mind, this is a situation where we have treatment options and approaches that work, and it’s really about implementing these services in a novel care setting,” he said. “ED patients are at higher risk of complications for AUD simply because they are in the ED in the first place – initiating AUD treatment in this setting is the right thing to do.”

Dr. Raven and Dr. Anderson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Starting treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with extended-release naltrexone injections in the emergency department produced a dramatic reduction in alcohol consumption, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The results show the feasibility of such a program and underscore the importance of the ED in combating AUD, said the researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco.

“According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 18% of ED visits had alcohol as a contributing factor – the volume of alcohol-related ED visits has been climbing every year, and it is a significant public health problem,” said Maria Raven, MD, MPH, professor of emergency medicine at UCSF. “Right now, we do very little for people who come to the ED with AUD, so it is a missed opportunity to intervene, especially given the volume of visits we see and that our patient population is one that often has significant barriers to accessing outpatient treatment.”

The findings come from a 12-week, prospective, single-arm study of ED patients who were actively drinking adults with known or suspected AUD and who had positive scores on a screening test. Of 179 patients who were approached, 32 agreed to enroll; the enrollment yield was 18%. Participants were given monthly extended-release naltrexone and case management services.

Of the 32 participants, 25 completed all their study visits and 22 (69%) continued taking naltrexone after the 12 weeks.

The researchers said the results surprised them. The average daily alcohol consumption at baseline was 7.6 drinks a day, and it fell by 7.5 drinks a day – in other words, to almost no consumption.

“The median alcohol consumption when measured over the last 2 weeks of the study was zero,” Dr. Raven said. “This doesn’t mean everyone was at zero, but this was the median and reflects that many participants stopped drinking altogether. We were pleasantly surprised by this. I don’t know that we thought so many people who participated would actually fully abstain.”

On the Kemp Quality of Life Scale – with scores from 1 to 7, with 1 being “life is very distressing,” 4 being “life is so-so,” and 7 being “life is great” – the average baseline score was 3.6. That score rose by 1.2 points by the study’s end.

Dr. Raven said she hoped more would enroll but that “a number of people actually did not want the injection or were not ready to think about stopping.” Still, the 18% enrollment is “a major improvement,” considering that no attempt was made to initiate treatment with naltrexone prior to the study. Oral naltrexone, rather than the injection, could be offered to improve participation, but oral naltrexone has to be taken daily.

She said a larger study is planned at UCSF and that other institutions are interested in starting a similar program.

“When someone is in the ED for an AUD-related issue, it can serve as a turning point for them in some cases,” she said.

Erik S. Anderson, MD, associate research director at Oakland, Calif.–based Alameda Health System, who has studied naltrexone in the ED, said the findings dovetail with what his team has found at his center. He added that psychosocial support is important as well and that his team has found that navigation services are the most important factor in connecting patients with follow-up care – even more so than providing medications.

“In my mind, this is a situation where we have treatment options and approaches that work, and it’s really about implementing these services in a novel care setting,” he said. “ED patients are at higher risk of complications for AUD simply because they are in the ED in the first place – initiating AUD treatment in this setting is the right thing to do.”

Dr. Raven and Dr. Anderson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

Prescription folic acid, a synthetic form of vitamin B₉, may provide a safe and effective approach for decreasing suicidal ideation, new research suggests.

After adjusting for multiple factors, results from a large pharmaco-epidemiological study showed taking folic acid was associated with a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“These results are really putting folic acid squarely on the map as a potential for large-scale, population-level prevention,” lead author Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Center for Health Statistics, University of Chicago, said in an interview.

University of Chicago

“Folic acid is safe, inexpensive, and generally available, and if future randomized controlled trials show this association is beyond a shadow of a doubt causal, we have a new tool in the arsenal,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Having such a tool would be extremely important given that suicide is such a significant public health crisis worldwide, he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Previous research ‘fairly thin’

Folate, the naturally occurring form of B₉, is essential for neurogenesis, nucleotide synthesis, and methylation of homocysteine. Past research has suggested that taking folate can prevent neural tube and heart defects in the fetus during pregnancy – and may prevent strokes and reduce age-related hearing loss in adults.

In psychiatry, the role of folate has been recognized for more than a decade. It may enhance the effects of antidepressants; and folate deficiency can predict poorer response to SSRIs.

This has led to recommendations for folate augmentation in patients with low or normal levels at the start of depression treatment.

Although previous research has shown a link between folic acid and suicidality, the findings have been “fairly thin,” with studies being “generally small, and many are case series,” Dr. Gibbons said.

The current study follows an earlier analysis that used a novel statistical methodology for generating drug safety signals that was developed by Dr. Gibbons and colleagues. That study compared rates of suicide attempts before and after initiation of 922 drugs with at least 3,000 prescriptions.

Its results showed 10 drugs were associated with increased risk after exposure, with the strongest associations for alprazolam, butalbital, hydrocodone, and combination codeine/promethazine. In addition, 44 drugs were associated with decreased risk, many of which were antidepressants and antipsychotics.

“One of the most interesting findings in terms of the decreased risk was for folic acid,” said Dr. Gibbons.

He and his colleagues initially thought this was because of women taking folic acid during pregnancy. But when restricting the analysis to men, they found the same effect.

Their next step was to carry out the current large-scale pharmaco-epidemiological study.
 

Prescriptions for pain

The researchers used a health claims database that included 164 million enrollees. The study cohort was comprised of 866,586 adults with private health insurance (81.3% women; 10.4% aged 60 years and older) who filled a folic acid prescription between 2012 and 2017.

More than half of the folic acid prescriptions were associated with pain disorders. About 48% were for a single agent at a dosage of 1 mg/d, which is the upper tolerable limit for adults – including in pregnancy and lactation.

Other single-agent daily dosages ranging from 0.4 mg to 5 mg accounted for 0.11% of prescriptions. The remainder were multivitamins.

The participants were followed for 24 months. The within-person analysis compared suicide attempts or self-harm events resulting in an outpatient visit or inpatient admission during periods of folic acid treatment versus during periods without treatment.

During the study period, the overall suicidal event rate was 133 per 100,000 population, which is one-fourth the national rate reported by the National Institutes of Health of 600 per 100,000.

After adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses related to suicidal behavior and folic acid deficiency, history of folate-reducing medications, and history of suicidal events, the estimated hazard ratio for suicide events when taking folic acid was 0.56 (95% confidence interal, 0.48-0.65) – which indicates a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“This is a very large decrease and is extremely significant and exciting,” Dr. Gibbons said.

He noted the decrease in suicidal events may have been even greater considering the study captured only prescription folic acid, and participants may also have also taken over-the-counter products.

“The 44% reduction in suicide attempts may actually be an underestimate,” said Dr. Gibbons.

Age and sex did not moderate the association between folic acid and suicide attempts, and a similar association was found in women of childbearing age.
 

Provocative results?

The investigators also assessed a negative control group of 236,610 individuals using cyanocobalamin during the study period. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin B₁₂ that is essential for metabolism, blood cell synthesis, and the nervous system. It does not contain folic acid and is commonly used to treat anemia.

Results showed no association between cyanocobalamin and suicidal events in the adjusted analysis (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.27) or unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28).

Dr. Gibbons noted this result boosts the argument that the association between folic acid and reduced suicidal attempts “isn’t just about health-seeking behavior like taking vitamin supplements.”

Another sensitivity analysis showed every additional month of treatment was associated with a 5% reduction in the suicidal event rate.

“This means the longer you take folic acid, the greater the benefit, which is what you would expect to see if there was a real association between a treatment and an outcome,” said Dr. Gibbons.

The new results “are so provocative that they really mandate the need for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial of folic acid and suicide events,” possibly in a high-risk population such as veterans, he noted.

Such a study could use longitudinal assessments of suicidal events, such as the validated Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale, he added. This continuous scale of suicidality ranges from subclinical, signifying helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of pleasure, to suicide attempts and completion.

As for study limitations, the investigators noted that this study was observational, so there could be selection effects. And using claims data likely underrepresented the number of suicidal events because of incomplete reporting. As the researchers pointed out, the rate of suicidal events in this study was much lower than the national rate.

Other limitations cited were that the association between folic acid and suicidal events may be explained by healthy user bias; and although the investigators conducted a sensitivity analysis in women of childbearing age, they did not have data on women actively planning for a pregnancy.
 

‘Impressive, encouraging’

In a comment, Shirley Yen, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the new findings as “quite impressive” and “extremely encouraging.”

However, she noted “it’s too premature” to suggest widespread use of folic acid in patients with depressive symptoms.

Dr. Yen, who has researched suicide risks previously, was not involved with the current study.

She did agree with the investigators that the results call for “more robustly controlled studies. These could include double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that could “more formally assess” all folic acid usage as opposed to prescriptions only, Dr. Yen said.

The study was funded by the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gibbons reported serving as an expert witness in cases for the Department of Justice; receiving expert witness fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; and having founded Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale. Dr. Yen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prescription folic acid, a synthetic form of vitamin B₉, may provide a safe and effective approach for decreasing suicidal ideation, new research suggests.

After adjusting for multiple factors, results from a large pharmaco-epidemiological study showed taking folic acid was associated with a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“These results are really putting folic acid squarely on the map as a potential for large-scale, population-level prevention,” lead author Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Center for Health Statistics, University of Chicago, said in an interview.

University of Chicago

“Folic acid is safe, inexpensive, and generally available, and if future randomized controlled trials show this association is beyond a shadow of a doubt causal, we have a new tool in the arsenal,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Having such a tool would be extremely important given that suicide is such a significant public health crisis worldwide, he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Previous research ‘fairly thin’

Folate, the naturally occurring form of B₉, is essential for neurogenesis, nucleotide synthesis, and methylation of homocysteine. Past research has suggested that taking folate can prevent neural tube and heart defects in the fetus during pregnancy – and may prevent strokes and reduce age-related hearing loss in adults.

In psychiatry, the role of folate has been recognized for more than a decade. It may enhance the effects of antidepressants; and folate deficiency can predict poorer response to SSRIs.

This has led to recommendations for folate augmentation in patients with low or normal levels at the start of depression treatment.

Although previous research has shown a link between folic acid and suicidality, the findings have been “fairly thin,” with studies being “generally small, and many are case series,” Dr. Gibbons said.

The current study follows an earlier analysis that used a novel statistical methodology for generating drug safety signals that was developed by Dr. Gibbons and colleagues. That study compared rates of suicide attempts before and after initiation of 922 drugs with at least 3,000 prescriptions.

Its results showed 10 drugs were associated with increased risk after exposure, with the strongest associations for alprazolam, butalbital, hydrocodone, and combination codeine/promethazine. In addition, 44 drugs were associated with decreased risk, many of which were antidepressants and antipsychotics.

“One of the most interesting findings in terms of the decreased risk was for folic acid,” said Dr. Gibbons.

He and his colleagues initially thought this was because of women taking folic acid during pregnancy. But when restricting the analysis to men, they found the same effect.

Their next step was to carry out the current large-scale pharmaco-epidemiological study.
 

Prescriptions for pain

The researchers used a health claims database that included 164 million enrollees. The study cohort was comprised of 866,586 adults with private health insurance (81.3% women; 10.4% aged 60 years and older) who filled a folic acid prescription between 2012 and 2017.

More than half of the folic acid prescriptions were associated with pain disorders. About 48% were for a single agent at a dosage of 1 mg/d, which is the upper tolerable limit for adults – including in pregnancy and lactation.

Other single-agent daily dosages ranging from 0.4 mg to 5 mg accounted for 0.11% of prescriptions. The remainder were multivitamins.

The participants were followed for 24 months. The within-person analysis compared suicide attempts or self-harm events resulting in an outpatient visit or inpatient admission during periods of folic acid treatment versus during periods without treatment.

During the study period, the overall suicidal event rate was 133 per 100,000 population, which is one-fourth the national rate reported by the National Institutes of Health of 600 per 100,000.

After adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses related to suicidal behavior and folic acid deficiency, history of folate-reducing medications, and history of suicidal events, the estimated hazard ratio for suicide events when taking folic acid was 0.56 (95% confidence interal, 0.48-0.65) – which indicates a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“This is a very large decrease and is extremely significant and exciting,” Dr. Gibbons said.

He noted the decrease in suicidal events may have been even greater considering the study captured only prescription folic acid, and participants may also have also taken over-the-counter products.

“The 44% reduction in suicide attempts may actually be an underestimate,” said Dr. Gibbons.

Age and sex did not moderate the association between folic acid and suicide attempts, and a similar association was found in women of childbearing age.
 

Provocative results?

The investigators also assessed a negative control group of 236,610 individuals using cyanocobalamin during the study period. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin B₁₂ that is essential for metabolism, blood cell synthesis, and the nervous system. It does not contain folic acid and is commonly used to treat anemia.

Results showed no association between cyanocobalamin and suicidal events in the adjusted analysis (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.27) or unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28).

Dr. Gibbons noted this result boosts the argument that the association between folic acid and reduced suicidal attempts “isn’t just about health-seeking behavior like taking vitamin supplements.”

Another sensitivity analysis showed every additional month of treatment was associated with a 5% reduction in the suicidal event rate.

“This means the longer you take folic acid, the greater the benefit, which is what you would expect to see if there was a real association between a treatment and an outcome,” said Dr. Gibbons.

The new results “are so provocative that they really mandate the need for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial of folic acid and suicide events,” possibly in a high-risk population such as veterans, he noted.

Such a study could use longitudinal assessments of suicidal events, such as the validated Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale, he added. This continuous scale of suicidality ranges from subclinical, signifying helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of pleasure, to suicide attempts and completion.

As for study limitations, the investigators noted that this study was observational, so there could be selection effects. And using claims data likely underrepresented the number of suicidal events because of incomplete reporting. As the researchers pointed out, the rate of suicidal events in this study was much lower than the national rate.

Other limitations cited were that the association between folic acid and suicidal events may be explained by healthy user bias; and although the investigators conducted a sensitivity analysis in women of childbearing age, they did not have data on women actively planning for a pregnancy.
 

‘Impressive, encouraging’

In a comment, Shirley Yen, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the new findings as “quite impressive” and “extremely encouraging.”

However, she noted “it’s too premature” to suggest widespread use of folic acid in patients with depressive symptoms.

Dr. Yen, who has researched suicide risks previously, was not involved with the current study.

She did agree with the investigators that the results call for “more robustly controlled studies. These could include double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that could “more formally assess” all folic acid usage as opposed to prescriptions only, Dr. Yen said.

The study was funded by the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gibbons reported serving as an expert witness in cases for the Department of Justice; receiving expert witness fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; and having founded Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale. Dr. Yen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prescription folic acid, a synthetic form of vitamin B₉, may provide a safe and effective approach for decreasing suicidal ideation, new research suggests.

After adjusting for multiple factors, results from a large pharmaco-epidemiological study showed taking folic acid was associated with a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“These results are really putting folic acid squarely on the map as a potential for large-scale, population-level prevention,” lead author Robert D. Gibbons, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Center for Health Statistics, University of Chicago, said in an interview.

University of Chicago

“Folic acid is safe, inexpensive, and generally available, and if future randomized controlled trials show this association is beyond a shadow of a doubt causal, we have a new tool in the arsenal,” Dr. Gibbons said.

Having such a tool would be extremely important given that suicide is such a significant public health crisis worldwide, he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Previous research ‘fairly thin’

Folate, the naturally occurring form of B₉, is essential for neurogenesis, nucleotide synthesis, and methylation of homocysteine. Past research has suggested that taking folate can prevent neural tube and heart defects in the fetus during pregnancy – and may prevent strokes and reduce age-related hearing loss in adults.

In psychiatry, the role of folate has been recognized for more than a decade. It may enhance the effects of antidepressants; and folate deficiency can predict poorer response to SSRIs.

This has led to recommendations for folate augmentation in patients with low or normal levels at the start of depression treatment.

Although previous research has shown a link between folic acid and suicidality, the findings have been “fairly thin,” with studies being “generally small, and many are case series,” Dr. Gibbons said.

The current study follows an earlier analysis that used a novel statistical methodology for generating drug safety signals that was developed by Dr. Gibbons and colleagues. That study compared rates of suicide attempts before and after initiation of 922 drugs with at least 3,000 prescriptions.

Its results showed 10 drugs were associated with increased risk after exposure, with the strongest associations for alprazolam, butalbital, hydrocodone, and combination codeine/promethazine. In addition, 44 drugs were associated with decreased risk, many of which were antidepressants and antipsychotics.

“One of the most interesting findings in terms of the decreased risk was for folic acid,” said Dr. Gibbons.

He and his colleagues initially thought this was because of women taking folic acid during pregnancy. But when restricting the analysis to men, they found the same effect.

Their next step was to carry out the current large-scale pharmaco-epidemiological study.
 

Prescriptions for pain

The researchers used a health claims database that included 164 million enrollees. The study cohort was comprised of 866,586 adults with private health insurance (81.3% women; 10.4% aged 60 years and older) who filled a folic acid prescription between 2012 and 2017.

More than half of the folic acid prescriptions were associated with pain disorders. About 48% were for a single agent at a dosage of 1 mg/d, which is the upper tolerable limit for adults – including in pregnancy and lactation.

Other single-agent daily dosages ranging from 0.4 mg to 5 mg accounted for 0.11% of prescriptions. The remainder were multivitamins.

The participants were followed for 24 months. The within-person analysis compared suicide attempts or self-harm events resulting in an outpatient visit or inpatient admission during periods of folic acid treatment versus during periods without treatment.

During the study period, the overall suicidal event rate was 133 per 100,000 population, which is one-fourth the national rate reported by the National Institutes of Health of 600 per 100,000.

After adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses related to suicidal behavior and folic acid deficiency, history of folate-reducing medications, and history of suicidal events, the estimated hazard ratio for suicide events when taking folic acid was 0.56 (95% confidence interal, 0.48-0.65) – which indicates a 44% reduction in suicide events.

“This is a very large decrease and is extremely significant and exciting,” Dr. Gibbons said.

He noted the decrease in suicidal events may have been even greater considering the study captured only prescription folic acid, and participants may also have also taken over-the-counter products.

“The 44% reduction in suicide attempts may actually be an underestimate,” said Dr. Gibbons.

Age and sex did not moderate the association between folic acid and suicide attempts, and a similar association was found in women of childbearing age.
 

Provocative results?

The investigators also assessed a negative control group of 236,610 individuals using cyanocobalamin during the study period. Cyanocobalamin is a form of vitamin B₁₂ that is essential for metabolism, blood cell synthesis, and the nervous system. It does not contain folic acid and is commonly used to treat anemia.

Results showed no association between cyanocobalamin and suicidal events in the adjusted analysis (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.80-1.27) or unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80-1.28).

Dr. Gibbons noted this result boosts the argument that the association between folic acid and reduced suicidal attempts “isn’t just about health-seeking behavior like taking vitamin supplements.”

Another sensitivity analysis showed every additional month of treatment was associated with a 5% reduction in the suicidal event rate.

“This means the longer you take folic acid, the greater the benefit, which is what you would expect to see if there was a real association between a treatment and an outcome,” said Dr. Gibbons.

The new results “are so provocative that they really mandate the need for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial of folic acid and suicide events,” possibly in a high-risk population such as veterans, he noted.

Such a study could use longitudinal assessments of suicidal events, such as the validated Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale, he added. This continuous scale of suicidality ranges from subclinical, signifying helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of pleasure, to suicide attempts and completion.

As for study limitations, the investigators noted that this study was observational, so there could be selection effects. And using claims data likely underrepresented the number of suicidal events because of incomplete reporting. As the researchers pointed out, the rate of suicidal events in this study was much lower than the national rate.

Other limitations cited were that the association between folic acid and suicidal events may be explained by healthy user bias; and although the investigators conducted a sensitivity analysis in women of childbearing age, they did not have data on women actively planning for a pregnancy.
 

‘Impressive, encouraging’

In a comment, Shirley Yen, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, described the new findings as “quite impressive” and “extremely encouraging.”

However, she noted “it’s too premature” to suggest widespread use of folic acid in patients with depressive symptoms.

Dr. Yen, who has researched suicide risks previously, was not involved with the current study.

She did agree with the investigators that the results call for “more robustly controlled studies. These could include double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that could “more formally assess” all folic acid usage as opposed to prescriptions only, Dr. Yen said.

The study was funded by the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Center of Excellence for Suicide Prevention. Dr. Gibbons reported serving as an expert witness in cases for the Department of Justice; receiving expert witness fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; and having founded Adaptive Testing Technologies, which distributes the Computerized Adaptive Test Suicide Scale. Dr. Yen reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

COVID-19 causes DNA damage to the heart, affecting the body in a completely different way than the flu does, according to a study published in Immunology. 

The study looked at the hearts of patients who died from COVID-19, the flu, and other causes. The findings could provide clues about why coronavirus has led to complications such as ongoing heart issues.

“We found a lot of DNA damage that was unique to the COVID-19 patients, which wasn’t present in the flu patients,” Arutha Kulasinghe, one of the lead study authors and a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, told the Brisbane Times.

“So in this study, COVID-19 and flu look very different in the way they affect the heart,” he said.

Dr. Kulasinghe and colleagues analyzed the hearts of seven COVID-19 patients, two flu patients, and six patients who died from other causes. They used transcriptomic profiling, which looks at the DNA landscape of an organ, to investigate heart tissue from the patients.

Because of previous studies about heart problems associated with COVID-19, he and colleagues expected to find extreme inflammation in the heart. Instead, they found that inflammation signals had been suppressed in the heart, and markers for DNA damage and repair were much higher. They’re still unsure of the underlying cause.

“The indications here are that there’s DNA damage here, it’s not inflammation,” Dr. Kulasinghe said. “There’s something else going on that we need to figure out.”

The damage was similar to the way chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer appear in the heart, he said, with heart tissue showing DNA damage signals. 

Dr. Kulasinghe said he hopes other studies can build on the findings to develop risk models to understand which patients may face a higher risk of serious COVID-19 complications. In turn, this could help doctors provide early treatment. For instance, all seven COVID-19 patients had other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. 

“Ideally in the future, if you have cardiovascular disease, if you’re obese or have other complications, and you’ve got a signature in your blood that indicates you are at risk of severe disease, then we can risk-stratify patients when they are diagnosed,” he said. 

The research is a preliminary step, Dr. Kulasinghe said, because of the small sample size. This type of study is often difficult to conduct because researchers have to wait for the availability of organs, as well as request permission from families for postmortem autopsies and biopsies, to be able to look at the effects on dead tissues.

“Our challenge now is to draw a clinical finding from this, which we can’t at this stage,” he added. “But it’s a really fundamental biological difference we’re observing [between COVID-19 and flu], which we need to validate with larger studies.”

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

Frankie Cook remembers last year’s car crash only in flashes.

She was driving a friend home from high school on a winding road outside Rome, Ga. She saw standing water from a recent rain. She tried to slow down but lost control of her car on a big curve. “The car flipped about three times,” Frankie said. “We spun around and went off the side of this hill. My car was on its side, and the back end was crushed up into a tree.”

Frankie said the air bags deployed and both passengers were wearing seat belts, so she was left with just a headache when her father, Russell Cook, came to pick her up from the crash site.

Frankie, then a high school junior, worried she might have a concussion that could affect her performance on an upcoming Advanced Placement exam, so she and her father decided to stop by an urgent care center near their house to get her checked out. They didn’t make it past the front desk.

“‘We don’t take third-party insurance,’” Russell said the receptionist at Atrium Health Floyd Urgent Care Rome told him, though he wasn’t sure what she meant. “She told me, like, three times.”

The problem didn’t seem to be that the clinic lacked the medical expertise to evaluate Frankie. Rather, the Cooks seemed to be confronting a reimbursement policy that is often used by urgent care centers to avoid waiting for payments from car insurance settlements.

Russell was told to take Frankie to an emergency room, which by law must see all patients regardless of such issues. The nearest one, at Atrium Health Floyd Medical Center, was about a mile down the road and was owned by the same hospital system as the urgent care center.

There, Russell said, a doctor looked Frankie over “for just a few minutes,” did precautionary CT scans of her head and body, and sent her home with advice to “take some Tylenol” and rest. She did not have a concussion or serious head injury and was able to take her AP exam on time.

Then the bill came.

The patient: Frankie Cook, 18, now a first-year college student from Rome, Ga.

Medical services: A medical evaluation and two CT scans.

Service provider: Atrium Health Floyd, a hospital system with urgent care centers in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.

Total bill: $17,005 for an emergency room visit; it was later adjusted to $11,805 after a duplicate charge was removed.

What gives: The Cooks hit a hazard in the health care system after Frankie’s car struck that tree: More and more hospital systems own urgent care centers, which have limits on whom they treat – for both financial and medical reasons.

Russell was pretty upset after he received such a large bill, especially when he had tried to make a quick, inexpensive trip to the clinic. He said Frankie’s grandmother was seen at an urgent care center after a car wreck and walked out with a bill for just a few hundred dollars.

“That’s kind of what I was expecting,” he said. “She just really needed to be looked over.”

So why was Frankie turned away from an urgent care center?

Lou Ellen Horwitz, CEO of the Urgent Care Association, said it’s a pretty standard policy for urgent care centers not to treat injuries that result from car crashes, even minor ones. “Generally, as a rule, they do not take care of car accident victims regardless of the extent of their injuries, because it is going to go through that auto insurance claims process before the provider gets paid,” she said.

Ms. Horwitz said urgent care centers – even ones owned by big health systems – often operate on thin margins and can’t wait months and months for an auto insurance company to pay out a claim. She said “unfortunately” people tend to learn about such policies when they show up expecting care.

Fold in the complicated relationship between health and auto insurance companies and you have what Barak D. Richman, a health care policy professor at Duke University’s law school, called “the wildly complex world that we live in.”

“Each product has its own specifications about where to go and what it covers. Each one is incredibly difficult and complex to administer,” he said. “And each one imposes mistakes on the system.”

Atrium Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Frankie’s case.

Ms. Horwitz dismissed the idea that a health system might push people in car wrecks from urgent care centers to emergency rooms to make more money off them. Still, auto insurance generally pays more than health insurance for the same services.

Mr. Richman remained skeptical.

“At the risk of sounding a little too cynical, there are always dollar signs when a health care provider sees a patient come through the door,” Mr. Richman said.

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said it was likely strategic for the urgent care center to be right down the street from the ER. Part of the strategy makes sense medically, he said, “because if a bad thing happens, you want to get them to some place with more skill really quickly.”

But he also said urgent care centers are “one of the most effective ways” for a health system to generate new revenue, creating a pipeline of new patients to visit its hospitals and later see doctors for testing and follow-up.

Dr. Mehrotra said urgent care centers are not bound by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law known as EMTALA that requires hospitals to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay.

At the time of Frankie’s visit, both the urgent care center and emergency room were owned by Floyd health system, which operated a handful of hospitals and clinics in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Since then, Floyd has merged with Atrium Health – a larger, North Carolina–based company that operates dozens of hospitals across the Southeast.

Frankie got a CT scan of her head and body in the emergency room, tests KHN confirmed she couldn’t have gotten at the urgent care center regardless of whether the test was medically necessary or just part of a protocol for people in car wrecks who complain of a headache.

Resolution: Sixteen months have passed since Frankie Cook’s hospital visit, and Russell has delayed paying any of the bill on advice he got from a family friend who’s an attorney. After insurance covered its share, the Cooks’ portion came to $1,042.

Getting to that number has been a frustrating process, Russell said. He heard about the initial $17,005 bill in a letter from a lawyer representing the hospital – another unnerving wrinkle of Frankie’s care resulting from the car wreck. The Cooks then had to pursue a lengthy appeal process to get a $5,200 duplicate charge removed from the bill.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cooks’ insurer, paid $4,006 of the claim. It said in a statement that it’s “committed to providing access to high-quality medical care for our members. This matter was reviewed in accordance with our clinical guidelines, and the billed claims were processed accordingly.”

“It’s not going to put us out on the street,” Russell said of the $1,042 balance, “but we’ve got expenses like everybody else.”

He added, “I would have loved a $200 urgent care visit, but that ship has sailed.”

The takeaway: It’s important to remember that urgent care centers aren’t governed by the same laws as emergency rooms and that they can be more selective about whom they treat. Sometimes their reasons are financial, not clinical.

It’s not uncommon for urgent care centers – even ones in large health systems – to turn away people who have been in car wrecks because of the complications that car insurance settlements create.

Although urgent care visits are less expensive than going to an emergency room, the clinics often can’t offer the same level of care. And you might have to pay the cost of an urgent care visit just to find out you need follow-up care in the emergency room. Then you could be stuck with two bills.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Frankie Cook remembers last year’s car crash only in flashes.

She was driving a friend home from high school on a winding road outside Rome, Ga. She saw standing water from a recent rain. She tried to slow down but lost control of her car on a big curve. “The car flipped about three times,” Frankie said. “We spun around and went off the side of this hill. My car was on its side, and the back end was crushed up into a tree.”

Frankie said the air bags deployed and both passengers were wearing seat belts, so she was left with just a headache when her father, Russell Cook, came to pick her up from the crash site.

Frankie, then a high school junior, worried she might have a concussion that could affect her performance on an upcoming Advanced Placement exam, so she and her father decided to stop by an urgent care center near their house to get her checked out. They didn’t make it past the front desk.

“‘We don’t take third-party insurance,’” Russell said the receptionist at Atrium Health Floyd Urgent Care Rome told him, though he wasn’t sure what she meant. “She told me, like, three times.”

The problem didn’t seem to be that the clinic lacked the medical expertise to evaluate Frankie. Rather, the Cooks seemed to be confronting a reimbursement policy that is often used by urgent care centers to avoid waiting for payments from car insurance settlements.

Russell was told to take Frankie to an emergency room, which by law must see all patients regardless of such issues. The nearest one, at Atrium Health Floyd Medical Center, was about a mile down the road and was owned by the same hospital system as the urgent care center.

There, Russell said, a doctor looked Frankie over “for just a few minutes,” did precautionary CT scans of her head and body, and sent her home with advice to “take some Tylenol” and rest. She did not have a concussion or serious head injury and was able to take her AP exam on time.

Then the bill came.

The patient: Frankie Cook, 18, now a first-year college student from Rome, Ga.

Medical services: A medical evaluation and two CT scans.

Service provider: Atrium Health Floyd, a hospital system with urgent care centers in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.

Total bill: $17,005 for an emergency room visit; it was later adjusted to $11,805 after a duplicate charge was removed.

What gives: The Cooks hit a hazard in the health care system after Frankie’s car struck that tree: More and more hospital systems own urgent care centers, which have limits on whom they treat – for both financial and medical reasons.

Russell was pretty upset after he received such a large bill, especially when he had tried to make a quick, inexpensive trip to the clinic. He said Frankie’s grandmother was seen at an urgent care center after a car wreck and walked out with a bill for just a few hundred dollars.

“That’s kind of what I was expecting,” he said. “She just really needed to be looked over.”

So why was Frankie turned away from an urgent care center?

Lou Ellen Horwitz, CEO of the Urgent Care Association, said it’s a pretty standard policy for urgent care centers not to treat injuries that result from car crashes, even minor ones. “Generally, as a rule, they do not take care of car accident victims regardless of the extent of their injuries, because it is going to go through that auto insurance claims process before the provider gets paid,” she said.

Ms. Horwitz said urgent care centers – even ones owned by big health systems – often operate on thin margins and can’t wait months and months for an auto insurance company to pay out a claim. She said “unfortunately” people tend to learn about such policies when they show up expecting care.

Fold in the complicated relationship between health and auto insurance companies and you have what Barak D. Richman, a health care policy professor at Duke University’s law school, called “the wildly complex world that we live in.”

“Each product has its own specifications about where to go and what it covers. Each one is incredibly difficult and complex to administer,” he said. “And each one imposes mistakes on the system.”

Atrium Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Frankie’s case.

Ms. Horwitz dismissed the idea that a health system might push people in car wrecks from urgent care centers to emergency rooms to make more money off them. Still, auto insurance generally pays more than health insurance for the same services.

Mr. Richman remained skeptical.

“At the risk of sounding a little too cynical, there are always dollar signs when a health care provider sees a patient come through the door,” Mr. Richman said.

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said it was likely strategic for the urgent care center to be right down the street from the ER. Part of the strategy makes sense medically, he said, “because if a bad thing happens, you want to get them to some place with more skill really quickly.”

But he also said urgent care centers are “one of the most effective ways” for a health system to generate new revenue, creating a pipeline of new patients to visit its hospitals and later see doctors for testing and follow-up.

Dr. Mehrotra said urgent care centers are not bound by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law known as EMTALA that requires hospitals to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay.

At the time of Frankie’s visit, both the urgent care center and emergency room were owned by Floyd health system, which operated a handful of hospitals and clinics in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Since then, Floyd has merged with Atrium Health – a larger, North Carolina–based company that operates dozens of hospitals across the Southeast.

Frankie got a CT scan of her head and body in the emergency room, tests KHN confirmed she couldn’t have gotten at the urgent care center regardless of whether the test was medically necessary or just part of a protocol for people in car wrecks who complain of a headache.

Resolution: Sixteen months have passed since Frankie Cook’s hospital visit, and Russell has delayed paying any of the bill on advice he got from a family friend who’s an attorney. After insurance covered its share, the Cooks’ portion came to $1,042.

Getting to that number has been a frustrating process, Russell said. He heard about the initial $17,005 bill in a letter from a lawyer representing the hospital – another unnerving wrinkle of Frankie’s care resulting from the car wreck. The Cooks then had to pursue a lengthy appeal process to get a $5,200 duplicate charge removed from the bill.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cooks’ insurer, paid $4,006 of the claim. It said in a statement that it’s “committed to providing access to high-quality medical care for our members. This matter was reviewed in accordance with our clinical guidelines, and the billed claims were processed accordingly.”

“It’s not going to put us out on the street,” Russell said of the $1,042 balance, “but we’ve got expenses like everybody else.”

He added, “I would have loved a $200 urgent care visit, but that ship has sailed.”

The takeaway: It’s important to remember that urgent care centers aren’t governed by the same laws as emergency rooms and that they can be more selective about whom they treat. Sometimes their reasons are financial, not clinical.

It’s not uncommon for urgent care centers – even ones in large health systems – to turn away people who have been in car wrecks because of the complications that car insurance settlements create.

Although urgent care visits are less expensive than going to an emergency room, the clinics often can’t offer the same level of care. And you might have to pay the cost of an urgent care visit just to find out you need follow-up care in the emergency room. Then you could be stuck with two bills.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Frankie Cook remembers last year’s car crash only in flashes.

She was driving a friend home from high school on a winding road outside Rome, Ga. She saw standing water from a recent rain. She tried to slow down but lost control of her car on a big curve. “The car flipped about three times,” Frankie said. “We spun around and went off the side of this hill. My car was on its side, and the back end was crushed up into a tree.”

Frankie said the air bags deployed and both passengers were wearing seat belts, so she was left with just a headache when her father, Russell Cook, came to pick her up from the crash site.

Frankie, then a high school junior, worried she might have a concussion that could affect her performance on an upcoming Advanced Placement exam, so she and her father decided to stop by an urgent care center near their house to get her checked out. They didn’t make it past the front desk.

“‘We don’t take third-party insurance,’” Russell said the receptionist at Atrium Health Floyd Urgent Care Rome told him, though he wasn’t sure what she meant. “She told me, like, three times.”

The problem didn’t seem to be that the clinic lacked the medical expertise to evaluate Frankie. Rather, the Cooks seemed to be confronting a reimbursement policy that is often used by urgent care centers to avoid waiting for payments from car insurance settlements.

Russell was told to take Frankie to an emergency room, which by law must see all patients regardless of such issues. The nearest one, at Atrium Health Floyd Medical Center, was about a mile down the road and was owned by the same hospital system as the urgent care center.

There, Russell said, a doctor looked Frankie over “for just a few minutes,” did precautionary CT scans of her head and body, and sent her home with advice to “take some Tylenol” and rest. She did not have a concussion or serious head injury and was able to take her AP exam on time.

Then the bill came.

The patient: Frankie Cook, 18, now a first-year college student from Rome, Ga.

Medical services: A medical evaluation and two CT scans.

Service provider: Atrium Health Floyd, a hospital system with urgent care centers in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama.

Total bill: $17,005 for an emergency room visit; it was later adjusted to $11,805 after a duplicate charge was removed.

What gives: The Cooks hit a hazard in the health care system after Frankie’s car struck that tree: More and more hospital systems own urgent care centers, which have limits on whom they treat – for both financial and medical reasons.

Russell was pretty upset after he received such a large bill, especially when he had tried to make a quick, inexpensive trip to the clinic. He said Frankie’s grandmother was seen at an urgent care center after a car wreck and walked out with a bill for just a few hundred dollars.

“That’s kind of what I was expecting,” he said. “She just really needed to be looked over.”

So why was Frankie turned away from an urgent care center?

Lou Ellen Horwitz, CEO of the Urgent Care Association, said it’s a pretty standard policy for urgent care centers not to treat injuries that result from car crashes, even minor ones. “Generally, as a rule, they do not take care of car accident victims regardless of the extent of their injuries, because it is going to go through that auto insurance claims process before the provider gets paid,” she said.

Ms. Horwitz said urgent care centers – even ones owned by big health systems – often operate on thin margins and can’t wait months and months for an auto insurance company to pay out a claim. She said “unfortunately” people tend to learn about such policies when they show up expecting care.

Fold in the complicated relationship between health and auto insurance companies and you have what Barak D. Richman, a health care policy professor at Duke University’s law school, called “the wildly complex world that we live in.”

“Each product has its own specifications about where to go and what it covers. Each one is incredibly difficult and complex to administer,” he said. “And each one imposes mistakes on the system.”

Atrium Health did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Frankie’s case.

Ms. Horwitz dismissed the idea that a health system might push people in car wrecks from urgent care centers to emergency rooms to make more money off them. Still, auto insurance generally pays more than health insurance for the same services.

Mr. Richman remained skeptical.

“At the risk of sounding a little too cynical, there are always dollar signs when a health care provider sees a patient come through the door,” Mr. Richman said.

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said it was likely strategic for the urgent care center to be right down the street from the ER. Part of the strategy makes sense medically, he said, “because if a bad thing happens, you want to get them to some place with more skill really quickly.”

But he also said urgent care centers are “one of the most effective ways” for a health system to generate new revenue, creating a pipeline of new patients to visit its hospitals and later see doctors for testing and follow-up.

Dr. Mehrotra said urgent care centers are not bound by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law known as EMTALA that requires hospitals to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay.

At the time of Frankie’s visit, both the urgent care center and emergency room were owned by Floyd health system, which operated a handful of hospitals and clinics in northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Since then, Floyd has merged with Atrium Health – a larger, North Carolina–based company that operates dozens of hospitals across the Southeast.

Frankie got a CT scan of her head and body in the emergency room, tests KHN confirmed she couldn’t have gotten at the urgent care center regardless of whether the test was medically necessary or just part of a protocol for people in car wrecks who complain of a headache.

Resolution: Sixteen months have passed since Frankie Cook’s hospital visit, and Russell has delayed paying any of the bill on advice he got from a family friend who’s an attorney. After insurance covered its share, the Cooks’ portion came to $1,042.

Getting to that number has been a frustrating process, Russell said. He heard about the initial $17,005 bill in a letter from a lawyer representing the hospital – another unnerving wrinkle of Frankie’s care resulting from the car wreck. The Cooks then had to pursue a lengthy appeal process to get a $5,200 duplicate charge removed from the bill.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Cooks’ insurer, paid $4,006 of the claim. It said in a statement that it’s “committed to providing access to high-quality medical care for our members. This matter was reviewed in accordance with our clinical guidelines, and the billed claims were processed accordingly.”

“It’s not going to put us out on the street,” Russell said of the $1,042 balance, “but we’ve got expenses like everybody else.”

He added, “I would have loved a $200 urgent care visit, but that ship has sailed.”

The takeaway: It’s important to remember that urgent care centers aren’t governed by the same laws as emergency rooms and that they can be more selective about whom they treat. Sometimes their reasons are financial, not clinical.

It’s not uncommon for urgent care centers – even ones in large health systems – to turn away people who have been in car wrecks because of the complications that car insurance settlements create.

Although urgent care visits are less expensive than going to an emergency room, the clinics often can’t offer the same level of care. And you might have to pay the cost of an urgent care visit just to find out you need follow-up care in the emergency room. Then you could be stuck with two bills.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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