Federal Practitioner

Patients with both diabetes and atrial fibrillation may derive greater benefits from non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants than from warfarin, suggests a new study.

The new research, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants was associated with reduced diabetes complications and lower mortality vs. taking warfarin in the group examined.

In their paper, the researchers present the outcomes of a retrospective cohort study involving 30,209 patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Of these, 19,909 were treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban – and 10,300 were treated with warfarin.

Dr. Huei-Kai Huang from the Hualien (Taiwan) Tzu Chi Hospital and coauthors wrote that, while diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for stroke, there’s not yet a good understanding of the effect of different oral anticoagulants on the risk for diabetes-related complications in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

“Recent evidence has suggested that NOAC and warfarin may have different effects on glycemic control through the vitamin K–related mechanisms,” coauthor Yu-Kang Tu, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University in Taipei said in an interview. “It was therefore natural to further evaluate whether NOAC could help decrease various diabetes-related complications, compared with warfarin.”

Hazards with NOACS vs. warfarin

The researchers found that patients treated with NOACs had a 16% lower hazard of macrovascular complications – a composite of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91; P < .001) – and a 21% lower hazard of microvascular complications including dialysis and lower-extremity amputations (95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P < .001).

NOAC therapy was also associated a 22% lower hazard of death (95% CI, 0.75-0.82; P < .001) and a 9% lower hazard for glycemic emergency (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .043), which the authors defined as a composite of diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and hypoglycemia.

In particular, patients treated with NOACs showed significantly lower hazards for coronary artery disease, stroke, dialysis, amputation of lower extremities, and death from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes, compared with warfarin users.

The study also found that patients on higher volumes of NOAC medication had greater reductions in mortality and diabetes complications.

“Although our main findings can be explained by the potential differences in underlying mechanisms of action between NOAC and warfarin, we were still surprised with the significantly lower risks of retinopathy, neuropathy, and hypoglycemia in patients taking NOAC with high medication possession ratio,” Dr. Tu said.

Study provides more diabetes-specific outcomes data

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Peter Rossing, head of complications research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen said there has long been discussion about whether the newer and more expensive NOACs offer greater benefits to patient with diabetes – beyond stroke prevention – compared with the older and cheaper warfarin. As such, this study was important in providing more diabetes-specific outcomes data and in a large population.

“The effect size they find is certainly meaningful and relevant and should support decision-making,” Dr. Rossing noted in an interview. The finding of reduced risk of amputation and mortality “fits in line with theory that maybe if you block vitamin K, you get calcification, you get vascular damage that leads to failure of the kidney and leads to limb amputations, and that is potentially prevented or not developed when you give the NOACs.”

Dr. John Camm, professor of clinical cardiology at St George’s University of London, said the findings of the benefits of NOACs in this patient group ,were confirmation of earlier, smaller studies, and were important not just for patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes, but also those prone to diabetes.

“We know from previous studies from the same database, and also from Korea, [for example], that patients who are treated with NOACs as opposed to warfarin develop less diabetes,” he explained.

Dr. Camm said many guidelines around the world now suggest NOACs, and, in some cases, even advise against using vitamin K antagonists as a first option, except in certain situations, such as when patients have rheumatic heart disease, mild to moderate mitral stenosis in rheumatic disease, or prosthetic heart valves.

The researchers applied two methods to account for covariates that may have influenced whether patients received one class of treatment or the other. These achieved ‘appropriate balance’ of baseline characteristics such as comorbidities and baseline medication use for diabetes and other conditions, Dr. Tu and colleagues wrote.

The benefits of NOACs were less evident in younger patients, and the reductions in mortality and diabetes complications associated with NOACs did not reach statistical significance in those aged under 65 years. Regarding this, Dr. Camm noted that there was a debate as to whether patients under 65 years with atrial fibrillation and diabetes should be put on an anticoagulant.

The study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with both diabetes and atrial fibrillation may derive greater benefits from non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants than from warfarin, suggests a new study.

The new research, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants was associated with reduced diabetes complications and lower mortality vs. taking warfarin in the group examined.

In their paper, the researchers present the outcomes of a retrospective cohort study involving 30,209 patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Of these, 19,909 were treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban – and 10,300 were treated with warfarin.

Dr. Huei-Kai Huang from the Hualien (Taiwan) Tzu Chi Hospital and coauthors wrote that, while diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for stroke, there’s not yet a good understanding of the effect of different oral anticoagulants on the risk for diabetes-related complications in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

“Recent evidence has suggested that NOAC and warfarin may have different effects on glycemic control through the vitamin K–related mechanisms,” coauthor Yu-Kang Tu, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University in Taipei said in an interview. “It was therefore natural to further evaluate whether NOAC could help decrease various diabetes-related complications, compared with warfarin.”

Hazards with NOACS vs. warfarin

The researchers found that patients treated with NOACs had a 16% lower hazard of macrovascular complications – a composite of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91; P < .001) – and a 21% lower hazard of microvascular complications including dialysis and lower-extremity amputations (95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P < .001).

NOAC therapy was also associated a 22% lower hazard of death (95% CI, 0.75-0.82; P < .001) and a 9% lower hazard for glycemic emergency (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .043), which the authors defined as a composite of diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and hypoglycemia.

In particular, patients treated with NOACs showed significantly lower hazards for coronary artery disease, stroke, dialysis, amputation of lower extremities, and death from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes, compared with warfarin users.

The study also found that patients on higher volumes of NOAC medication had greater reductions in mortality and diabetes complications.

“Although our main findings can be explained by the potential differences in underlying mechanisms of action between NOAC and warfarin, we were still surprised with the significantly lower risks of retinopathy, neuropathy, and hypoglycemia in patients taking NOAC with high medication possession ratio,” Dr. Tu said.

Study provides more diabetes-specific outcomes data

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Peter Rossing, head of complications research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen said there has long been discussion about whether the newer and more expensive NOACs offer greater benefits to patient with diabetes – beyond stroke prevention – compared with the older and cheaper warfarin. As such, this study was important in providing more diabetes-specific outcomes data and in a large population.

“The effect size they find is certainly meaningful and relevant and should support decision-making,” Dr. Rossing noted in an interview. The finding of reduced risk of amputation and mortality “fits in line with theory that maybe if you block vitamin K, you get calcification, you get vascular damage that leads to failure of the kidney and leads to limb amputations, and that is potentially prevented or not developed when you give the NOACs.”

Dr. John Camm, professor of clinical cardiology at St George’s University of London, said the findings of the benefits of NOACs in this patient group ,were confirmation of earlier, smaller studies, and were important not just for patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes, but also those prone to diabetes.

“We know from previous studies from the same database, and also from Korea, [for example], that patients who are treated with NOACs as opposed to warfarin develop less diabetes,” he explained.

Dr. Camm said many guidelines around the world now suggest NOACs, and, in some cases, even advise against using vitamin K antagonists as a first option, except in certain situations, such as when patients have rheumatic heart disease, mild to moderate mitral stenosis in rheumatic disease, or prosthetic heart valves.

The researchers applied two methods to account for covariates that may have influenced whether patients received one class of treatment or the other. These achieved ‘appropriate balance’ of baseline characteristics such as comorbidities and baseline medication use for diabetes and other conditions, Dr. Tu and colleagues wrote.

The benefits of NOACs were less evident in younger patients, and the reductions in mortality and diabetes complications associated with NOACs did not reach statistical significance in those aged under 65 years. Regarding this, Dr. Camm noted that there was a debate as to whether patients under 65 years with atrial fibrillation and diabetes should be put on an anticoagulant.

The study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with both diabetes and atrial fibrillation may derive greater benefits from non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants than from warfarin, suggests a new study.

The new research, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants was associated with reduced diabetes complications and lower mortality vs. taking warfarin in the group examined.

In their paper, the researchers present the outcomes of a retrospective cohort study involving 30,209 patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Of these, 19,909 were treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban – and 10,300 were treated with warfarin.

Dr. Huei-Kai Huang from the Hualien (Taiwan) Tzu Chi Hospital and coauthors wrote that, while diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for stroke, there’s not yet a good understanding of the effect of different oral anticoagulants on the risk for diabetes-related complications in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

“Recent evidence has suggested that NOAC and warfarin may have different effects on glycemic control through the vitamin K–related mechanisms,” coauthor Yu-Kang Tu, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University in Taipei said in an interview. “It was therefore natural to further evaluate whether NOAC could help decrease various diabetes-related complications, compared with warfarin.”

Hazards with NOACS vs. warfarin

The researchers found that patients treated with NOACs had a 16% lower hazard of macrovascular complications – a composite of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91; P < .001) – and a 21% lower hazard of microvascular complications including dialysis and lower-extremity amputations (95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P < .001).

NOAC therapy was also associated a 22% lower hazard of death (95% CI, 0.75-0.82; P < .001) and a 9% lower hazard for glycemic emergency (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .043), which the authors defined as a composite of diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and hypoglycemia.

In particular, patients treated with NOACs showed significantly lower hazards for coronary artery disease, stroke, dialysis, amputation of lower extremities, and death from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes, compared with warfarin users.

The study also found that patients on higher volumes of NOAC medication had greater reductions in mortality and diabetes complications.

“Although our main findings can be explained by the potential differences in underlying mechanisms of action between NOAC and warfarin, we were still surprised with the significantly lower risks of retinopathy, neuropathy, and hypoglycemia in patients taking NOAC with high medication possession ratio,” Dr. Tu said.

Study provides more diabetes-specific outcomes data

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Peter Rossing, head of complications research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen said there has long been discussion about whether the newer and more expensive NOACs offer greater benefits to patient with diabetes – beyond stroke prevention – compared with the older and cheaper warfarin. As such, this study was important in providing more diabetes-specific outcomes data and in a large population.

“The effect size they find is certainly meaningful and relevant and should support decision-making,” Dr. Rossing noted in an interview. The finding of reduced risk of amputation and mortality “fits in line with theory that maybe if you block vitamin K, you get calcification, you get vascular damage that leads to failure of the kidney and leads to limb amputations, and that is potentially prevented or not developed when you give the NOACs.”

Dr. John Camm, professor of clinical cardiology at St George’s University of London, said the findings of the benefits of NOACs in this patient group ,were confirmation of earlier, smaller studies, and were important not just for patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes, but also those prone to diabetes.

“We know from previous studies from the same database, and also from Korea, [for example], that patients who are treated with NOACs as opposed to warfarin develop less diabetes,” he explained.

Dr. Camm said many guidelines around the world now suggest NOACs, and, in some cases, even advise against using vitamin K antagonists as a first option, except in certain situations, such as when patients have rheumatic heart disease, mild to moderate mitral stenosis in rheumatic disease, or prosthetic heart valves.

The researchers applied two methods to account for covariates that may have influenced whether patients received one class of treatment or the other. These achieved ‘appropriate balance’ of baseline characteristics such as comorbidities and baseline medication use for diabetes and other conditions, Dr. Tu and colleagues wrote.

The benefits of NOACs were less evident in younger patients, and the reductions in mortality and diabetes complications associated with NOACs did not reach statistical significance in those aged under 65 years. Regarding this, Dr. Camm noted that there was a debate as to whether patients under 65 years with atrial fibrillation and diabetes should be put on an anticoagulant.

The study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Younger and older patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have similar pulmonary and physical health limitations, based on data from 1,058 adults.

Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) generally appears in older patients, the prevalence among adults aged 45-55 years was 6.5% in 2014-2015, wrote Rosanne J.H.C.G. Beijers, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and colleagues. However, data on the early-onset COPD phenotype are limited. In particular, the extent to which younger patients with early-onset severe COPD experienced the same physical and mental health problems as older patients with similar degree of airflow limitation has not been examined, they said.

In a study published in Clinical Nutrition, the researchers analyzed data from adults with COPD who were referred for pulmonary rehabilitation at a single center between July 2013 and August 2018. Severe disease was defined as FEV1< 50%, and early onset was defined as younger than 55 years. The mean age difference between older and younger patient groups was 15.8 years.

The study population included 79 individuals with early-onset severe disease, 54 with early-onset mild to moderate disease, 158 older adults with severe disease, and 103 older adults with mild to moderate disease. The researchers compared disease markers including body composition, physical performance, and mental health between the groups. A significantly greater proportion of the early-onset group were women, compared to the older group (64% vs. 44%).

In comparing early-onset and older patients with severe COPD, the researchers found that clinical characteristics were similar for body composition, skeletal muscle index, fat percentage, and bone mineral content, and for physical performance factors including the percent predicted maximal work capacity (Wmax), 6-minute walk test, and isokinetic strength. However, a higher prevalence of depression appeared in the early-onset severe-disease patients, compared with the older severe-disease patients (51.9% vs. 32.7%; P = .029).

Although the prevalence of depression was not based on a clinical diagnosis, this finding should prompt health care professionals to pay more attention to psychosocial and emotional well-being in early-onset severe COPD patients, the researchers noted.

In comparing early-onset severe-disease patients and early-onset patients with mild to moderate disease, patients with early-onset severe COPD had significantly lower exercise performance, based on a 6-minute walk test and percent predicted Wmax. However, body composition and isokinetic muscle strength were not significantly different between both early-onset groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of early-onset patients and the lack of data on whether older patients were diagnosed with severe COPD at a younger age, and more research using age and lung function at the time of diagnosis is needed, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the importance of early identification of patients at risk for early-onset severe COPD, they said. “Within these individuals at risk, special attention should also be paid to the development of extrapulmonary disease manifestations such as exercise limitations, impaired body composition, and psychological and emotional problems,” the researchers said. “Subsequently, intervention strategies need to be applied that not only focus on the regular advice of quitting smoking but also include decreasing the exposure to air pollutants and promoting a healthy lifestyle including physical activity and a healthy diet,” they added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Beijers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Younger and older patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have similar pulmonary and physical health limitations, based on data from 1,058 adults.

Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) generally appears in older patients, the prevalence among adults aged 45-55 years was 6.5% in 2014-2015, wrote Rosanne J.H.C.G. Beijers, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and colleagues. However, data on the early-onset COPD phenotype are limited. In particular, the extent to which younger patients with early-onset severe COPD experienced the same physical and mental health problems as older patients with similar degree of airflow limitation has not been examined, they said.

In a study published in Clinical Nutrition, the researchers analyzed data from adults with COPD who were referred for pulmonary rehabilitation at a single center between July 2013 and August 2018. Severe disease was defined as FEV1< 50%, and early onset was defined as younger than 55 years. The mean age difference between older and younger patient groups was 15.8 years.

The study population included 79 individuals with early-onset severe disease, 54 with early-onset mild to moderate disease, 158 older adults with severe disease, and 103 older adults with mild to moderate disease. The researchers compared disease markers including body composition, physical performance, and mental health between the groups. A significantly greater proportion of the early-onset group were women, compared to the older group (64% vs. 44%).

In comparing early-onset and older patients with severe COPD, the researchers found that clinical characteristics were similar for body composition, skeletal muscle index, fat percentage, and bone mineral content, and for physical performance factors including the percent predicted maximal work capacity (Wmax), 6-minute walk test, and isokinetic strength. However, a higher prevalence of depression appeared in the early-onset severe-disease patients, compared with the older severe-disease patients (51.9% vs. 32.7%; P = .029).

Although the prevalence of depression was not based on a clinical diagnosis, this finding should prompt health care professionals to pay more attention to psychosocial and emotional well-being in early-onset severe COPD patients, the researchers noted.

In comparing early-onset severe-disease patients and early-onset patients with mild to moderate disease, patients with early-onset severe COPD had significantly lower exercise performance, based on a 6-minute walk test and percent predicted Wmax. However, body composition and isokinetic muscle strength were not significantly different between both early-onset groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of early-onset patients and the lack of data on whether older patients were diagnosed with severe COPD at a younger age, and more research using age and lung function at the time of diagnosis is needed, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the importance of early identification of patients at risk for early-onset severe COPD, they said. “Within these individuals at risk, special attention should also be paid to the development of extrapulmonary disease manifestations such as exercise limitations, impaired body composition, and psychological and emotional problems,” the researchers said. “Subsequently, intervention strategies need to be applied that not only focus on the regular advice of quitting smoking but also include decreasing the exposure to air pollutants and promoting a healthy lifestyle including physical activity and a healthy diet,” they added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Beijers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Younger and older patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have similar pulmonary and physical health limitations, based on data from 1,058 adults.

Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) generally appears in older patients, the prevalence among adults aged 45-55 years was 6.5% in 2014-2015, wrote Rosanne J.H.C.G. Beijers, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and colleagues. However, data on the early-onset COPD phenotype are limited. In particular, the extent to which younger patients with early-onset severe COPD experienced the same physical and mental health problems as older patients with similar degree of airflow limitation has not been examined, they said.

In a study published in Clinical Nutrition, the researchers analyzed data from adults with COPD who were referred for pulmonary rehabilitation at a single center between July 2013 and August 2018. Severe disease was defined as FEV1< 50%, and early onset was defined as younger than 55 years. The mean age difference between older and younger patient groups was 15.8 years.

The study population included 79 individuals with early-onset severe disease, 54 with early-onset mild to moderate disease, 158 older adults with severe disease, and 103 older adults with mild to moderate disease. The researchers compared disease markers including body composition, physical performance, and mental health between the groups. A significantly greater proportion of the early-onset group were women, compared to the older group (64% vs. 44%).

In comparing early-onset and older patients with severe COPD, the researchers found that clinical characteristics were similar for body composition, skeletal muscle index, fat percentage, and bone mineral content, and for physical performance factors including the percent predicted maximal work capacity (Wmax), 6-minute walk test, and isokinetic strength. However, a higher prevalence of depression appeared in the early-onset severe-disease patients, compared with the older severe-disease patients (51.9% vs. 32.7%; P = .029).

Although the prevalence of depression was not based on a clinical diagnosis, this finding should prompt health care professionals to pay more attention to psychosocial and emotional well-being in early-onset severe COPD patients, the researchers noted.

In comparing early-onset severe-disease patients and early-onset patients with mild to moderate disease, patients with early-onset severe COPD had significantly lower exercise performance, based on a 6-minute walk test and percent predicted Wmax. However, body composition and isokinetic muscle strength were not significantly different between both early-onset groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of early-onset patients and the lack of data on whether older patients were diagnosed with severe COPD at a younger age, and more research using age and lung function at the time of diagnosis is needed, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the importance of early identification of patients at risk for early-onset severe COPD, they said. “Within these individuals at risk, special attention should also be paid to the development of extrapulmonary disease manifestations such as exercise limitations, impaired body composition, and psychological and emotional problems,” the researchers said. “Subsequently, intervention strategies need to be applied that not only focus on the regular advice of quitting smoking but also include decreasing the exposure to air pollutants and promoting a healthy lifestyle including physical activity and a healthy diet,” they added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Beijers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Global climate change is hitting home for dermatologists, according to a recent survey in which the majority of participants said their patients are already being impacted.

Almost 80% of the 148 participants who responded to an electronic survey reported this belief.

The survey was designed and distributed to the membership of various dermatological organizations by Misha Rosenbach, MD, and coauthors. The results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Asked also about specific types of climate-driven phenomena with a current – or future – impact on their patients, 80.1% reported that they believed that increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is impactful, or will be. Changes in temporal or geographic patterns of vector-borne illnesses were affirmed by 78.7%, and an increase in social displacement caused by extreme weather or other events was affirmed by 67.1% as having an impact on their patients currently or in the future.

Other phenomena affirmed by respondents as already having an impact or impacting patients in the future were an increased incidence of heat exposure or heat-related illness (58.2%); an increase in rates of inflammatory skin disease flares (43.2%); increased incidence of waterborne infections (42.5%); and increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis (29.5%).

The survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Climate Change Expert Resource Group (ERG), among other organizations.

The study design and membership overlap made it impossible to calculate a response rate, the authors said, but they estimated it to be about 10%.

Almost all respondents were from the United States, and most (86.3%) practiced in an academic setting. The findings are similar to those of an online survey of members of the International Society of Dermatology (ISD), published in 2020, which found that 89% of 158 respondents believed climate change will impact the incidence of skin diseases in their area.

“Physicians, including dermatologists, are starting to understand the impact of the climate crisis on both their patients and themselves ... both through lived experiences and [issues raised] more in the scientific literature and in meetings,” Dr. Rosenbach, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

A majority of participants in the U.S. survey agreed they have a responsibility to bring awareness of the health effects of climate change to patients (77.2%) and to policymakers (88.6%). (In the ISD survey, 88% said they believed that dermatologists should play an advocacy role in climate change-related issues).

Only a minority of respondents in the U.S. survey said that they would feel comfortable discussing climate change with their patients (37.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents said they would like to be better informed about climate change before doing so. And 81.8% said they would like to read more about the dermatological effects of climate change in scientific journals.

“There continues to be unfilled interest in education and advocacy regarding climate change, suggesting a ‘practice gap’ even among dermatologists,” Dr. Rosenbach and his colleagues wrote, noting opportunities for professional organizations and journals to provide more resources and “actionable items” regarding climate change.

Some dermatologists have been taking action, in the meantime, to reduce the carbon footprint of their practices and institutions. Reductions in facility energy consumption, and reductions in medical waste/optimization of recycling, were each reported by more than one-third of survey respondents.

And almost half indicated that their practice or institution had increased capacity for telemedicine or telecommuting in response to climate change. Only 8% said their practice or institution had divested from fossil fuel stocks and/or bonds.

“There are a lot of sustainability-in-medicine solutions that are actually cost-neutral or cost-saving for practices,” said Dr. Rosenbach, who is a founder and co-chair of the AAD’s ERG on Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Research in dermatology is starting to quantify the environmental impact of some of these changes. In a research letter also published in the British Journal of Dermatology, researchers from Cardiff University and the department of dermatology at University Hospital of Wales, described how they determined that reusable surgical packs used for skin surgery are more sustainable than single-use packs because of their reduced cost and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Such single-site reports are “early feeders” into what will become a stream of larger studies quantifying the impact of measures taken in dermatology, Dr. Rosenbach said.

Across medicine, there is evidence that health care professionals are now seeing climate change as a threat to their patients. In a multinational survey published last year in The Lancet Planetary Health, 77% of 3,977 participants said that climate change will cause a moderate or great deal of harm for their patients.

Climate change will be discussed at the AAD’s annual meeting in late March in a session devoted to the topic, and as part of a broader session on controversies in dermatology.

Dr. Rosenbach and two of the five authors of the dermatology research letter are members of the AAD’s ERG on climate change, but in the publication they noted that they were not writing on behalf of the AAD. None of the authors reported any disclosures, and there was no funding source for the survey.

Global climate change is hitting home for dermatologists, according to a recent survey in which the majority of participants said their patients are already being impacted.

Almost 80% of the 148 participants who responded to an electronic survey reported this belief.

The survey was designed and distributed to the membership of various dermatological organizations by Misha Rosenbach, MD, and coauthors. The results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Asked also about specific types of climate-driven phenomena with a current – or future – impact on their patients, 80.1% reported that they believed that increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is impactful, or will be. Changes in temporal or geographic patterns of vector-borne illnesses were affirmed by 78.7%, and an increase in social displacement caused by extreme weather or other events was affirmed by 67.1% as having an impact on their patients currently or in the future.

Other phenomena affirmed by respondents as already having an impact or impacting patients in the future were an increased incidence of heat exposure or heat-related illness (58.2%); an increase in rates of inflammatory skin disease flares (43.2%); increased incidence of waterborne infections (42.5%); and increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis (29.5%).

The survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Climate Change Expert Resource Group (ERG), among other organizations.

The study design and membership overlap made it impossible to calculate a response rate, the authors said, but they estimated it to be about 10%.

Almost all respondents were from the United States, and most (86.3%) practiced in an academic setting. The findings are similar to those of an online survey of members of the International Society of Dermatology (ISD), published in 2020, which found that 89% of 158 respondents believed climate change will impact the incidence of skin diseases in their area.

“Physicians, including dermatologists, are starting to understand the impact of the climate crisis on both their patients and themselves ... both through lived experiences and [issues raised] more in the scientific literature and in meetings,” Dr. Rosenbach, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

A majority of participants in the U.S. survey agreed they have a responsibility to bring awareness of the health effects of climate change to patients (77.2%) and to policymakers (88.6%). (In the ISD survey, 88% said they believed that dermatologists should play an advocacy role in climate change-related issues).

Only a minority of respondents in the U.S. survey said that they would feel comfortable discussing climate change with their patients (37.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents said they would like to be better informed about climate change before doing so. And 81.8% said they would like to read more about the dermatological effects of climate change in scientific journals.

“There continues to be unfilled interest in education and advocacy regarding climate change, suggesting a ‘practice gap’ even among dermatologists,” Dr. Rosenbach and his colleagues wrote, noting opportunities for professional organizations and journals to provide more resources and “actionable items” regarding climate change.

Some dermatologists have been taking action, in the meantime, to reduce the carbon footprint of their practices and institutions. Reductions in facility energy consumption, and reductions in medical waste/optimization of recycling, were each reported by more than one-third of survey respondents.

And almost half indicated that their practice or institution had increased capacity for telemedicine or telecommuting in response to climate change. Only 8% said their practice or institution had divested from fossil fuel stocks and/or bonds.

“There are a lot of sustainability-in-medicine solutions that are actually cost-neutral or cost-saving for practices,” said Dr. Rosenbach, who is a founder and co-chair of the AAD’s ERG on Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Research in dermatology is starting to quantify the environmental impact of some of these changes. In a research letter also published in the British Journal of Dermatology, researchers from Cardiff University and the department of dermatology at University Hospital of Wales, described how they determined that reusable surgical packs used for skin surgery are more sustainable than single-use packs because of their reduced cost and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Such single-site reports are “early feeders” into what will become a stream of larger studies quantifying the impact of measures taken in dermatology, Dr. Rosenbach said.

Across medicine, there is evidence that health care professionals are now seeing climate change as a threat to their patients. In a multinational survey published last year in The Lancet Planetary Health, 77% of 3,977 participants said that climate change will cause a moderate or great deal of harm for their patients.

Climate change will be discussed at the AAD’s annual meeting in late March in a session devoted to the topic, and as part of a broader session on controversies in dermatology.

Dr. Rosenbach and two of the five authors of the dermatology research letter are members of the AAD’s ERG on climate change, but in the publication they noted that they were not writing on behalf of the AAD. None of the authors reported any disclosures, and there was no funding source for the survey.

Global climate change is hitting home for dermatologists, according to a recent survey in which the majority of participants said their patients are already being impacted.

Almost 80% of the 148 participants who responded to an electronic survey reported this belief.

The survey was designed and distributed to the membership of various dermatological organizations by Misha Rosenbach, MD, and coauthors. The results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Asked also about specific types of climate-driven phenomena with a current – or future – impact on their patients, 80.1% reported that they believed that increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is impactful, or will be. Changes in temporal or geographic patterns of vector-borne illnesses were affirmed by 78.7%, and an increase in social displacement caused by extreme weather or other events was affirmed by 67.1% as having an impact on their patients currently or in the future.

Other phenomena affirmed by respondents as already having an impact or impacting patients in the future were an increased incidence of heat exposure or heat-related illness (58.2%); an increase in rates of inflammatory skin disease flares (43.2%); increased incidence of waterborne infections (42.5%); and increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis (29.5%).

The survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Climate Change Expert Resource Group (ERG), among other organizations.

The study design and membership overlap made it impossible to calculate a response rate, the authors said, but they estimated it to be about 10%.

Almost all respondents were from the United States, and most (86.3%) practiced in an academic setting. The findings are similar to those of an online survey of members of the International Society of Dermatology (ISD), published in 2020, which found that 89% of 158 respondents believed climate change will impact the incidence of skin diseases in their area.

“Physicians, including dermatologists, are starting to understand the impact of the climate crisis on both their patients and themselves ... both through lived experiences and [issues raised] more in the scientific literature and in meetings,” Dr. Rosenbach, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

A majority of participants in the U.S. survey agreed they have a responsibility to bring awareness of the health effects of climate change to patients (77.2%) and to policymakers (88.6%). (In the ISD survey, 88% said they believed that dermatologists should play an advocacy role in climate change-related issues).

Only a minority of respondents in the U.S. survey said that they would feel comfortable discussing climate change with their patients (37.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents said they would like to be better informed about climate change before doing so. And 81.8% said they would like to read more about the dermatological effects of climate change in scientific journals.

“There continues to be unfilled interest in education and advocacy regarding climate change, suggesting a ‘practice gap’ even among dermatologists,” Dr. Rosenbach and his colleagues wrote, noting opportunities for professional organizations and journals to provide more resources and “actionable items” regarding climate change.

Some dermatologists have been taking action, in the meantime, to reduce the carbon footprint of their practices and institutions. Reductions in facility energy consumption, and reductions in medical waste/optimization of recycling, were each reported by more than one-third of survey respondents.

And almost half indicated that their practice or institution had increased capacity for telemedicine or telecommuting in response to climate change. Only 8% said their practice or institution had divested from fossil fuel stocks and/or bonds.

“There are a lot of sustainability-in-medicine solutions that are actually cost-neutral or cost-saving for practices,” said Dr. Rosenbach, who is a founder and co-chair of the AAD’s ERG on Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Research in dermatology is starting to quantify the environmental impact of some of these changes. In a research letter also published in the British Journal of Dermatology, researchers from Cardiff University and the department of dermatology at University Hospital of Wales, described how they determined that reusable surgical packs used for skin surgery are more sustainable than single-use packs because of their reduced cost and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Such single-site reports are “early feeders” into what will become a stream of larger studies quantifying the impact of measures taken in dermatology, Dr. Rosenbach said.

Across medicine, there is evidence that health care professionals are now seeing climate change as a threat to their patients. In a multinational survey published last year in The Lancet Planetary Health, 77% of 3,977 participants said that climate change will cause a moderate or great deal of harm for their patients.

Climate change will be discussed at the AAD’s annual meeting in late March in a session devoted to the topic, and as part of a broader session on controversies in dermatology.

Dr. Rosenbach and two of the five authors of the dermatology research letter are members of the AAD’s ERG on climate change, but in the publication they noted that they were not writing on behalf of the AAD. None of the authors reported any disclosures, and there was no funding source for the survey.

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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