Federal Practitioner

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.

A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.

The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.

An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.

“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.

CHARM initiative

Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.

CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.

At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.

Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.

Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.

The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
 

Holes in immunologic armor

Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.

In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.

Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).

It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).

Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.

“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.

Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
 

Lessons

Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.

Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.

Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.

“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.

Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.

“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”

The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”

The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.

In the United States, the rate of mortality caused by severe maternal morbidity has improved over time, but failure to rescue is significantly more common among racial and ethnic minorities.

These failures are a “major contributing factor” to the disproportionately higher rate of maternal mortality among women of color, reported lead author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity are a growing public health concern in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The reported incidence of severe maternal morbidity is twofold to threefold higher among Black American women, compared with non-Hispanic White women; and although the difference is less pronounced, the incidence of severe maternal morbidity also is higher among Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American women.”

The ensuant, disproportionate risk of maternal mortality may be further exacerbated by disparities in hospitals, according to the investigators. They noted that non-Hispanic White women tend to give birth in different hospitals than racial and ethnic minorities, and the hospitals serving people of color “are characterized by lower performance on maternal safety indicators.”

Even within hospitals that most often serve minorities, severe maternal morbidity is more common among women of color than women who are White, they added.

“However, the simple severe maternal morbidity rate is insufficient to assess hospital performance and should be complemented with the rate of failure to rescue,” wrote Dr. Guglielminotti and colleagues.
 

Measuring failure to rescue across racial and ethnic groups

According to the investigators, failure-to-rescue rate advances focus from complications themselves – which can occur when care is appropriate and may stem from patient characteristics – to a hospital’s response to such complications.

Using this metric, a 2016 study by Friedman and colleagues, which included data from 1998 to 2010, showed failure to rescue was more common among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women than white women.

The present study built upon these findings with data from almost 74 million delivery hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample (1999-2017). The population included 993,864 women with severe maternal morbidity, among whom 4,328 died.

Overall, the failure-to-rescue rate decreased over the course of the study from 13.2% in 1999-2000 to 4.5% in 2017 (P < .001).

Yet racial and ethnic inequities were apparent.

Compared with White women, non-Hispanic Black women had a significantly higher failure-to-rescue rate ratio (1.79; 95% CI, 1.77-1.81), as did Hispanic women (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), women of other non-White racial/ethnic backgrounds (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and women documented without racial/ethnic designations (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.42-1.45).

“Failure to rescue from severe maternal morbidity remains a major contributing factor to the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women in the United States,” the investigators concluded. “This finding underscores the need to identify factors accounting for these disparities and develop hospital-based interventions to reduce excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women.”
 

Striving for progress through systemic change

According to Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, “this study adds to the literature demonstrating that structural racism and implicit bias have profound negative impacts,” which “has implications for action.”

“We must increase efforts to improve maternal safety, including the rollout of Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health [AIM] bundles through statewide perinatal quality collaboratives,” Dr. Espey said. “AIM bundle implementation must focus on the context of health inequities related to racism and bias. Similarly, we must consider large scale public policy changes building on the Affordable Care Act, such as universal health coverage throughout the life span, [which] equitably increases access to quality health care for all.”

Constance Bohon, MD, of Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, offered a similar viewpoint, and suggested that further analyses could reveal the impacts of systemic changes, thereby guiding future interventions.

“It would be interesting to determine if declines in failure to rescue rates were greatest in states that implemented AIM safety bundles [in 2012] as compared with the states that did not,” Dr. Bohon said. “The same assessment could be made with a comparison between the states that did and those that did not approve the Medicaid expansion [in 2014]. Other beneficial data would be a comparison of the failure-to-rescue rates in hospitals that provide the same obstetrical level of care. Further studies need to be done in order to identify factors that have the greatest impact on the failure-to-rescue rate. Subsequently, proposals can be suggested for actions that can be taken to decrease the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minorities.”
 

Comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world

In an accompanying editorial, Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene Declercq, PhD, of Boston University, put the findings in a global context.

They noted that, in the United States over the past 2 decades, the rate of maternal mortality has either remained flat or increased, depending on study methodology; however, the relative state of affairs between the United States and the rest of the world is more straightforward.

“What is clear is that U.S. maternal mortality did not decline from 2000 to 2018,” wrote Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq. “This contrasts with World Health Organization data showing that maternal mortality declined by 38% worldwide and by 53% in Europe from 2000 to 2017. In fact, North America was the only world region to not show substantial declines in maternal mortality during the period, and U.S. maternal mortality rates are nearly twice those in Europe.”

Within the US, these shortcomings are felt most acutely among racial and ethnic minorities, they noted, as the present study suggests.

“The U.S. is still plagued by wide racial disparities, with similar or larger Black-White maternal mortality disparities in 2018 than existed in the 1940s,” they wrote. “Thus, any euphoria generated by the lack of increase in maternal mortality (if accurate) must be set in the context of worldwide improvements, in which the U.S. is an outlier with no improvement. The U.S. can and should do better!”

To this end, Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq wrote, “additional training and vigilance among clinicians can help to avert these largely preventable deaths. In addition, applying this same rigor to preventing deaths that occur in the community before and after birth, combined with a focus on social determinants among women during the reproductive years, will be essential to lowering U.S. maternal mortality overall and eliminating longstanding racial inequities.”

The study received no external funding. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

In the United States, the rate of mortality caused by severe maternal morbidity has improved over time, but failure to rescue is significantly more common among racial and ethnic minorities.

These failures are a “major contributing factor” to the disproportionately higher rate of maternal mortality among women of color, reported lead author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity are a growing public health concern in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The reported incidence of severe maternal morbidity is twofold to threefold higher among Black American women, compared with non-Hispanic White women; and although the difference is less pronounced, the incidence of severe maternal morbidity also is higher among Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American women.”

The ensuant, disproportionate risk of maternal mortality may be further exacerbated by disparities in hospitals, according to the investigators. They noted that non-Hispanic White women tend to give birth in different hospitals than racial and ethnic minorities, and the hospitals serving people of color “are characterized by lower performance on maternal safety indicators.”

Even within hospitals that most often serve minorities, severe maternal morbidity is more common among women of color than women who are White, they added.

“However, the simple severe maternal morbidity rate is insufficient to assess hospital performance and should be complemented with the rate of failure to rescue,” wrote Dr. Guglielminotti and colleagues.
 

Measuring failure to rescue across racial and ethnic groups

According to the investigators, failure-to-rescue rate advances focus from complications themselves – which can occur when care is appropriate and may stem from patient characteristics – to a hospital’s response to such complications.

Using this metric, a 2016 study by Friedman and colleagues, which included data from 1998 to 2010, showed failure to rescue was more common among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women than white women.

The present study built upon these findings with data from almost 74 million delivery hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample (1999-2017). The population included 993,864 women with severe maternal morbidity, among whom 4,328 died.

Overall, the failure-to-rescue rate decreased over the course of the study from 13.2% in 1999-2000 to 4.5% in 2017 (P < .001).

Yet racial and ethnic inequities were apparent.

Compared with White women, non-Hispanic Black women had a significantly higher failure-to-rescue rate ratio (1.79; 95% CI, 1.77-1.81), as did Hispanic women (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), women of other non-White racial/ethnic backgrounds (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and women documented without racial/ethnic designations (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.42-1.45).

“Failure to rescue from severe maternal morbidity remains a major contributing factor to the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women in the United States,” the investigators concluded. “This finding underscores the need to identify factors accounting for these disparities and develop hospital-based interventions to reduce excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women.”
 

Striving for progress through systemic change

According to Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, “this study adds to the literature demonstrating that structural racism and implicit bias have profound negative impacts,” which “has implications for action.”

“We must increase efforts to improve maternal safety, including the rollout of Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health [AIM] bundles through statewide perinatal quality collaboratives,” Dr. Espey said. “AIM bundle implementation must focus on the context of health inequities related to racism and bias. Similarly, we must consider large scale public policy changes building on the Affordable Care Act, such as universal health coverage throughout the life span, [which] equitably increases access to quality health care for all.”

Constance Bohon, MD, of Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, offered a similar viewpoint, and suggested that further analyses could reveal the impacts of systemic changes, thereby guiding future interventions.

“It would be interesting to determine if declines in failure to rescue rates were greatest in states that implemented AIM safety bundles [in 2012] as compared with the states that did not,” Dr. Bohon said. “The same assessment could be made with a comparison between the states that did and those that did not approve the Medicaid expansion [in 2014]. Other beneficial data would be a comparison of the failure-to-rescue rates in hospitals that provide the same obstetrical level of care. Further studies need to be done in order to identify factors that have the greatest impact on the failure-to-rescue rate. Subsequently, proposals can be suggested for actions that can be taken to decrease the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minorities.”
 

Comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world

In an accompanying editorial, Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene Declercq, PhD, of Boston University, put the findings in a global context.

They noted that, in the United States over the past 2 decades, the rate of maternal mortality has either remained flat or increased, depending on study methodology; however, the relative state of affairs between the United States and the rest of the world is more straightforward.

“What is clear is that U.S. maternal mortality did not decline from 2000 to 2018,” wrote Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq. “This contrasts with World Health Organization data showing that maternal mortality declined by 38% worldwide and by 53% in Europe from 2000 to 2017. In fact, North America was the only world region to not show substantial declines in maternal mortality during the period, and U.S. maternal mortality rates are nearly twice those in Europe.”

Within the US, these shortcomings are felt most acutely among racial and ethnic minorities, they noted, as the present study suggests.

“The U.S. is still plagued by wide racial disparities, with similar or larger Black-White maternal mortality disparities in 2018 than existed in the 1940s,” they wrote. “Thus, any euphoria generated by the lack of increase in maternal mortality (if accurate) must be set in the context of worldwide improvements, in which the U.S. is an outlier with no improvement. The U.S. can and should do better!”

To this end, Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq wrote, “additional training and vigilance among clinicians can help to avert these largely preventable deaths. In addition, applying this same rigor to preventing deaths that occur in the community before and after birth, combined with a focus on social determinants among women during the reproductive years, will be essential to lowering U.S. maternal mortality overall and eliminating longstanding racial inequities.”

The study received no external funding. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

In the United States, the rate of mortality caused by severe maternal morbidity has improved over time, but failure to rescue is significantly more common among racial and ethnic minorities.

These failures are a “major contributing factor” to the disproportionately higher rate of maternal mortality among women of color, reported lead author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity are a growing public health concern in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“The reported incidence of severe maternal morbidity is twofold to threefold higher among Black American women, compared with non-Hispanic White women; and although the difference is less pronounced, the incidence of severe maternal morbidity also is higher among Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Native American women.”

The ensuant, disproportionate risk of maternal mortality may be further exacerbated by disparities in hospitals, according to the investigators. They noted that non-Hispanic White women tend to give birth in different hospitals than racial and ethnic minorities, and the hospitals serving people of color “are characterized by lower performance on maternal safety indicators.”

Even within hospitals that most often serve minorities, severe maternal morbidity is more common among women of color than women who are White, they added.

“However, the simple severe maternal morbidity rate is insufficient to assess hospital performance and should be complemented with the rate of failure to rescue,” wrote Dr. Guglielminotti and colleagues.
 

Measuring failure to rescue across racial and ethnic groups

According to the investigators, failure-to-rescue rate advances focus from complications themselves – which can occur when care is appropriate and may stem from patient characteristics – to a hospital’s response to such complications.

Using this metric, a 2016 study by Friedman and colleagues, which included data from 1998 to 2010, showed failure to rescue was more common among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women than white women.

The present study built upon these findings with data from almost 74 million delivery hospitalizations in the National Inpatient Sample (1999-2017). The population included 993,864 women with severe maternal morbidity, among whom 4,328 died.

Overall, the failure-to-rescue rate decreased over the course of the study from 13.2% in 1999-2000 to 4.5% in 2017 (P < .001).

Yet racial and ethnic inequities were apparent.

Compared with White women, non-Hispanic Black women had a significantly higher failure-to-rescue rate ratio (1.79; 95% CI, 1.77-1.81), as did Hispanic women (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), women of other non-White racial/ethnic backgrounds (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.41), and women documented without racial/ethnic designations (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.42-1.45).

“Failure to rescue from severe maternal morbidity remains a major contributing factor to the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women in the United States,” the investigators concluded. “This finding underscores the need to identify factors accounting for these disparities and develop hospital-based interventions to reduce excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minority women.”
 

Striving for progress through systemic change

According to Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, “this study adds to the literature demonstrating that structural racism and implicit bias have profound negative impacts,” which “has implications for action.”

“We must increase efforts to improve maternal safety, including the rollout of Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health [AIM] bundles through statewide perinatal quality collaboratives,” Dr. Espey said. “AIM bundle implementation must focus on the context of health inequities related to racism and bias. Similarly, we must consider large scale public policy changes building on the Affordable Care Act, such as universal health coverage throughout the life span, [which] equitably increases access to quality health care for all.”

Constance Bohon, MD, of Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, offered a similar viewpoint, and suggested that further analyses could reveal the impacts of systemic changes, thereby guiding future interventions.

“It would be interesting to determine if declines in failure to rescue rates were greatest in states that implemented AIM safety bundles [in 2012] as compared with the states that did not,” Dr. Bohon said. “The same assessment could be made with a comparison between the states that did and those that did not approve the Medicaid expansion [in 2014]. Other beneficial data would be a comparison of the failure-to-rescue rates in hospitals that provide the same obstetrical level of care. Further studies need to be done in order to identify factors that have the greatest impact on the failure-to-rescue rate. Subsequently, proposals can be suggested for actions that can be taken to decrease the excess maternal mortality in racial and ethnic minorities.”
 

Comparing the U.S. with the rest of the world

In an accompanying editorial, Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene Declercq, PhD, of Boston University, put the findings in a global context.

They noted that, in the United States over the past 2 decades, the rate of maternal mortality has either remained flat or increased, depending on study methodology; however, the relative state of affairs between the United States and the rest of the world is more straightforward.

“What is clear is that U.S. maternal mortality did not decline from 2000 to 2018,” wrote Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq. “This contrasts with World Health Organization data showing that maternal mortality declined by 38% worldwide and by 53% in Europe from 2000 to 2017. In fact, North America was the only world region to not show substantial declines in maternal mortality during the period, and U.S. maternal mortality rates are nearly twice those in Europe.”

Within the US, these shortcomings are felt most acutely among racial and ethnic minorities, they noted, as the present study suggests.

“The U.S. is still plagued by wide racial disparities, with similar or larger Black-White maternal mortality disparities in 2018 than existed in the 1940s,” they wrote. “Thus, any euphoria generated by the lack of increase in maternal mortality (if accurate) must be set in the context of worldwide improvements, in which the U.S. is an outlier with no improvement. The U.S. can and should do better!”

To this end, Dr. MacDorman and Dr. Declercq wrote, “additional training and vigilance among clinicians can help to avert these largely preventable deaths. In addition, applying this same rigor to preventing deaths that occur in the community before and after birth, combined with a focus on social determinants among women during the reproductive years, will be essential to lowering U.S. maternal mortality overall and eliminating longstanding racial inequities.”

The study received no external funding. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) occurs as a complication of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for previous cancer or for nonmalignant disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 10%-15% of all AML cases, according to Ram Vasudevan Nampoothiri, MD, and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology/Public Domain

Dr. Nampoothiri and colleagues performed a retrospective study of 68 patients with t-AML who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) at their institution. They found significant predictors of reduced overall survival, including chromosomal rearrangements, induction regimens, donor type, patient performance status, and the type of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis the patients received, as reported in Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy.
 

Some populations benefit

Among the 68 patients studied, a total of 59.9% were women; and the median age was 56.5 years. All patients were analyzed for prior malignancy, therapy, time to diagnosis of t-AML, transplant details, relapse-free survival, overall survival, and predictors of outcomes.

At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, relapse-free survival, and overall survival were 17.9%, 34.5%, 47.6%, and 49.3%, respectively. Overall, acute and chronic GVHD occurred in 39 (57.4%) and 23 (33.8%) patients, respectively, according to the researchers.

The significant predictors of reduced overall survival were the presence of the 11q23 chromosomal rearrangement (hazard ratio, 3.24), use of induction regimens other than fludarabine, cytarabine, idarubicin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or 7 + 3 (HR, 3.65), use of haploidentical donors (HR, 3.48), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (HR, 5.83), and use of cyclosporine A–methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis (HR, 2.41).

The researchers also found that a significant decrease in survival was seen with an increasing number of any of these prognostic factors.
 

A growing need

The incidence of t-AML is increasing because of longer life expectancy of the general population and also because of the improved survival of patients treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation for prior malignancies, according to the researchers.

They concluded that, even with this increasing prevalence and normally poor prognosis, “patients of t-AML having good-risk karyotypes, good performance status, and having HLA-matched donors have favorable outcomes after allo-HSCT.”

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) occurs as a complication of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for previous cancer or for nonmalignant disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 10%-15% of all AML cases, according to Ram Vasudevan Nampoothiri, MD, and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology/Public Domain

Dr. Nampoothiri and colleagues performed a retrospective study of 68 patients with t-AML who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) at their institution. They found significant predictors of reduced overall survival, including chromosomal rearrangements, induction regimens, donor type, patient performance status, and the type of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis the patients received, as reported in Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy.
 

Some populations benefit

Among the 68 patients studied, a total of 59.9% were women; and the median age was 56.5 years. All patients were analyzed for prior malignancy, therapy, time to diagnosis of t-AML, transplant details, relapse-free survival, overall survival, and predictors of outcomes.

At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, relapse-free survival, and overall survival were 17.9%, 34.5%, 47.6%, and 49.3%, respectively. Overall, acute and chronic GVHD occurred in 39 (57.4%) and 23 (33.8%) patients, respectively, according to the researchers.

The significant predictors of reduced overall survival were the presence of the 11q23 chromosomal rearrangement (hazard ratio, 3.24), use of induction regimens other than fludarabine, cytarabine, idarubicin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or 7 + 3 (HR, 3.65), use of haploidentical donors (HR, 3.48), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (HR, 5.83), and use of cyclosporine A–methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis (HR, 2.41).

The researchers also found that a significant decrease in survival was seen with an increasing number of any of these prognostic factors.
 

A growing need

The incidence of t-AML is increasing because of longer life expectancy of the general population and also because of the improved survival of patients treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation for prior malignancies, according to the researchers.

They concluded that, even with this increasing prevalence and normally poor prognosis, “patients of t-AML having good-risk karyotypes, good performance status, and having HLA-matched donors have favorable outcomes after allo-HSCT.”

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) occurs as a complication of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for previous cancer or for nonmalignant disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 10%-15% of all AML cases, according to Ram Vasudevan Nampoothiri, MD, and colleagues at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology/Public Domain

Dr. Nampoothiri and colleagues performed a retrospective study of 68 patients with t-AML who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) at their institution. They found significant predictors of reduced overall survival, including chromosomal rearrangements, induction regimens, donor type, patient performance status, and the type of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis the patients received, as reported in Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy.
 

Some populations benefit

Among the 68 patients studied, a total of 59.9% were women; and the median age was 56.5 years. All patients were analyzed for prior malignancy, therapy, time to diagnosis of t-AML, transplant details, relapse-free survival, overall survival, and predictors of outcomes.

At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, relapse-free survival, and overall survival were 17.9%, 34.5%, 47.6%, and 49.3%, respectively. Overall, acute and chronic GVHD occurred in 39 (57.4%) and 23 (33.8%) patients, respectively, according to the researchers.

The significant predictors of reduced overall survival were the presence of the 11q23 chromosomal rearrangement (hazard ratio, 3.24), use of induction regimens other than fludarabine, cytarabine, idarubicin, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or 7 + 3 (HR, 3.65), use of haploidentical donors (HR, 3.48), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (HR, 5.83), and use of cyclosporine A–methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis (HR, 2.41).

The researchers also found that a significant decrease in survival was seen with an increasing number of any of these prognostic factors.
 

A growing need

The incidence of t-AML is increasing because of longer life expectancy of the general population and also because of the improved survival of patients treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation for prior malignancies, according to the researchers.

They concluded that, even with this increasing prevalence and normally poor prognosis, “patients of t-AML having good-risk karyotypes, good performance status, and having HLA-matched donors have favorable outcomes after allo-HSCT.”

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.

The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.

“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.

The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.

The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate

The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls). 

This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.

The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.

These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.

The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.

COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.

Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).

The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.

Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.

“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.  

“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.

Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.

This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.

The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.

“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.

The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.

The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate

The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls). 

This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.

The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.

These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.

The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.

COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.

Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).

The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.

Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.

“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.  

“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.

Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.

This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.

The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.

“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.

The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.

The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate

The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls). 

This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.

The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.

These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.

The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.

COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.

Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).

The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.

Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.

“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.  

“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.

Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.

This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released a draft of updated recommendations for screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). If accepted as written, the new recommendation will be to “screen all asymptomatic adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.” Upon diagnosis of prediabetes, the recommendation is to offer or refer patients to preventive interventions.

This new recommendation would replace the one from 2015, which recommended screening adults aged 40-70 who are overweight or obese, lowering the age at which screening begins by 5 years. It would also replace the recommendation of referral to intensive behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and exercise.¹

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) identifies A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or oral glucose tolerance tests as appropriate tests for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 DM, and the new draft recommendation does not provide a preference for method of screening.²

The USPSTF’s draft recommendation could expand screening with the hope of identifying patients with prediabetes, or those with diabetes who are asymptomatic, with the intent of beginning treatment before there are serious complications.
 

Unknown diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis common

It has been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 12% of U.S. adults had DM as of 2015, though nearly 24% were not aware that they had it. Also, according to the CDC, the prevalence of DM increases with age and is higher in those with less than a high school education. The same report indicates that more than 30% of U.S. adults have prediabetes, and with less than 12% of those individuals are aware of it.³ A possible explanation for a patient’s being unaware of a diagnosis could be that it has been documented in a chart but the patient does not know such information is in his or her health record. According to the evidence provided for the updated recommendation, earlier diagnosis may have an important benefit in preventing serious complications.

A modeling study compared simulated screening strategies and found that the most optimal screening strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective begins between the ages of 30 and 45, with rescreening every 3-5 years. Further models have led researchers to conclude that early diagnosis can lead to decreased cardiovascular events as well as an opportunity for multifactorial treatment.¹ For this reason, it makes sense to expand the ages of screening for obese and overweight individuals.
 

Treatment recommendations are more flexible

The change in treatment recommendations for a new diagnosis of prediabetes is potentially more useful. It may not be feasible or reasonable for physicians to always provide or refer their patients for intensive behavior interventions. The updated recommendation would allow for the inclusion of not only behavioral counseling and health education, but also potential medication options that are currently available but not approved, or that may be available in the future. The evidence review seemed to be mixed in outcome in this area, so the increased flexibility will likely allow for future opportunities.

Screening criteria may be too narrow

This recommendation, does not, however, provide any guidance on screening of individuals who have other risk factors besides a body mass index consistent with overweight or obesity. It seems that this may be a missed opportunity.

The draft statement clearly indicates that there are other factors associated with increased risk of developing DM, but does not consider these factors in determining which patients should be screened. Both the ADA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) have recommendations for universal screening for all adults 45 and older, acknowledging that incidence of DM increases with age. The ADA also recommends screening individuals who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor regardless of age. The AACE recommends screening all individuals for risk factors regardless of age.

The current and draft recommendations by the USPSTF do not address other risk factors and indicate only that further research is needed to understand the risk associated with DM and the natural history of pre-DM and who may progress to DM or revert to normoglycemia. Without comment on other risk factors or universal screening with age, the USPSTF recommendation potentially would not be sensitive enough to capture all those who may meet criteria for prediabetes or DM.^2,4

In addition to not addressing other risk factors and screening for those of normal and underweight BMI, the USPSTF recommendation does not address frequency of screening. The recommendations from both the ADA and the AACE indicate screening at 3-year intervals for those who are eligible – for any reason. The supporting evidence review did not seem to address this aspect, and so it is understandable that there was no comment. However, I feel this will lead physicians to turn to the other guidelines for guidance where there is disagreement in other aspects.

Ultimately, the draft updated recommendation will provide physicians with the opportunity to identify more patients with prediabetes and DM. This will be wonderful in terms of being able to offer treatments and lifestyle interventions to decrease the morbidity patients would face were these conditions not diagnosed. I hope that future recommendations will also address risk factors in addition to BMI as well as frequency of screening for those who remain at increased risk but initially screen negative.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 16.

2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002.

3. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

4. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Hadelsman Y et al. Endocr Pract. 2015 Apr. 1-87. doi: 10.4158/EP15672.GL.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released a draft of updated recommendations for screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). If accepted as written, the new recommendation will be to “screen all asymptomatic adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.” Upon diagnosis of prediabetes, the recommendation is to offer or refer patients to preventive interventions.

This new recommendation would replace the one from 2015, which recommended screening adults aged 40-70 who are overweight or obese, lowering the age at which screening begins by 5 years. It would also replace the recommendation of referral to intensive behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and exercise.¹

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) identifies A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or oral glucose tolerance tests as appropriate tests for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 DM, and the new draft recommendation does not provide a preference for method of screening.²

The USPSTF’s draft recommendation could expand screening with the hope of identifying patients with prediabetes, or those with diabetes who are asymptomatic, with the intent of beginning treatment before there are serious complications.
 

Unknown diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis common

It has been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 12% of U.S. adults had DM as of 2015, though nearly 24% were not aware that they had it. Also, according to the CDC, the prevalence of DM increases with age and is higher in those with less than a high school education. The same report indicates that more than 30% of U.S. adults have prediabetes, and with less than 12% of those individuals are aware of it.³ A possible explanation for a patient’s being unaware of a diagnosis could be that it has been documented in a chart but the patient does not know such information is in his or her health record. According to the evidence provided for the updated recommendation, earlier diagnosis may have an important benefit in preventing serious complications.

A modeling study compared simulated screening strategies and found that the most optimal screening strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective begins between the ages of 30 and 45, with rescreening every 3-5 years. Further models have led researchers to conclude that early diagnosis can lead to decreased cardiovascular events as well as an opportunity for multifactorial treatment.¹ For this reason, it makes sense to expand the ages of screening for obese and overweight individuals.
 

Treatment recommendations are more flexible

The change in treatment recommendations for a new diagnosis of prediabetes is potentially more useful. It may not be feasible or reasonable for physicians to always provide or refer their patients for intensive behavior interventions. The updated recommendation would allow for the inclusion of not only behavioral counseling and health education, but also potential medication options that are currently available but not approved, or that may be available in the future. The evidence review seemed to be mixed in outcome in this area, so the increased flexibility will likely allow for future opportunities.

Screening criteria may be too narrow

This recommendation, does not, however, provide any guidance on screening of individuals who have other risk factors besides a body mass index consistent with overweight or obesity. It seems that this may be a missed opportunity.

The draft statement clearly indicates that there are other factors associated with increased risk of developing DM, but does not consider these factors in determining which patients should be screened. Both the ADA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) have recommendations for universal screening for all adults 45 and older, acknowledging that incidence of DM increases with age. The ADA also recommends screening individuals who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor regardless of age. The AACE recommends screening all individuals for risk factors regardless of age.

The current and draft recommendations by the USPSTF do not address other risk factors and indicate only that further research is needed to understand the risk associated with DM and the natural history of pre-DM and who may progress to DM or revert to normoglycemia. Without comment on other risk factors or universal screening with age, the USPSTF recommendation potentially would not be sensitive enough to capture all those who may meet criteria for prediabetes or DM.^2,4

In addition to not addressing other risk factors and screening for those of normal and underweight BMI, the USPSTF recommendation does not address frequency of screening. The recommendations from both the ADA and the AACE indicate screening at 3-year intervals for those who are eligible – for any reason. The supporting evidence review did not seem to address this aspect, and so it is understandable that there was no comment. However, I feel this will lead physicians to turn to the other guidelines for guidance where there is disagreement in other aspects.

Ultimately, the draft updated recommendation will provide physicians with the opportunity to identify more patients with prediabetes and DM. This will be wonderful in terms of being able to offer treatments and lifestyle interventions to decrease the morbidity patients would face were these conditions not diagnosed. I hope that future recommendations will also address risk factors in addition to BMI as well as frequency of screening for those who remain at increased risk but initially screen negative.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 16.

2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002.

3. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

4. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Hadelsman Y et al. Endocr Pract. 2015 Apr. 1-87. doi: 10.4158/EP15672.GL.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released a draft of updated recommendations for screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). If accepted as written, the new recommendation will be to “screen all asymptomatic adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.” Upon diagnosis of prediabetes, the recommendation is to offer or refer patients to preventive interventions.

This new recommendation would replace the one from 2015, which recommended screening adults aged 40-70 who are overweight or obese, lowering the age at which screening begins by 5 years. It would also replace the recommendation of referral to intensive behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and exercise.¹

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) identifies A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or oral glucose tolerance tests as appropriate tests for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 DM, and the new draft recommendation does not provide a preference for method of screening.²

The USPSTF’s draft recommendation could expand screening with the hope of identifying patients with prediabetes, or those with diabetes who are asymptomatic, with the intent of beginning treatment before there are serious complications.
 

Unknown diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis common

It has been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 12% of U.S. adults had DM as of 2015, though nearly 24% were not aware that they had it. Also, according to the CDC, the prevalence of DM increases with age and is higher in those with less than a high school education. The same report indicates that more than 30% of U.S. adults have prediabetes, and with less than 12% of those individuals are aware of it.³ A possible explanation for a patient’s being unaware of a diagnosis could be that it has been documented in a chart but the patient does not know such information is in his or her health record. According to the evidence provided for the updated recommendation, earlier diagnosis may have an important benefit in preventing serious complications.

A modeling study compared simulated screening strategies and found that the most optimal screening strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective begins between the ages of 30 and 45, with rescreening every 3-5 years. Further models have led researchers to conclude that early diagnosis can lead to decreased cardiovascular events as well as an opportunity for multifactorial treatment.¹ For this reason, it makes sense to expand the ages of screening for obese and overweight individuals.
 

Treatment recommendations are more flexible

The change in treatment recommendations for a new diagnosis of prediabetes is potentially more useful. It may not be feasible or reasonable for physicians to always provide or refer their patients for intensive behavior interventions. The updated recommendation would allow for the inclusion of not only behavioral counseling and health education, but also potential medication options that are currently available but not approved, or that may be available in the future. The evidence review seemed to be mixed in outcome in this area, so the increased flexibility will likely allow for future opportunities.

Screening criteria may be too narrow

This recommendation, does not, however, provide any guidance on screening of individuals who have other risk factors besides a body mass index consistent with overweight or obesity. It seems that this may be a missed opportunity.

The draft statement clearly indicates that there are other factors associated with increased risk of developing DM, but does not consider these factors in determining which patients should be screened. Both the ADA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) have recommendations for universal screening for all adults 45 and older, acknowledging that incidence of DM increases with age. The ADA also recommends screening individuals who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor regardless of age. The AACE recommends screening all individuals for risk factors regardless of age.

The current and draft recommendations by the USPSTF do not address other risk factors and indicate only that further research is needed to understand the risk associated with DM and the natural history of pre-DM and who may progress to DM or revert to normoglycemia. Without comment on other risk factors or universal screening with age, the USPSTF recommendation potentially would not be sensitive enough to capture all those who may meet criteria for prediabetes or DM.^2,4

In addition to not addressing other risk factors and screening for those of normal and underweight BMI, the USPSTF recommendation does not address frequency of screening. The recommendations from both the ADA and the AACE indicate screening at 3-year intervals for those who are eligible – for any reason. The supporting evidence review did not seem to address this aspect, and so it is understandable that there was no comment. However, I feel this will lead physicians to turn to the other guidelines for guidance where there is disagreement in other aspects.

Ultimately, the draft updated recommendation will provide physicians with the opportunity to identify more patients with prediabetes and DM. This will be wonderful in terms of being able to offer treatments and lifestyle interventions to decrease the morbidity patients would face were these conditions not diagnosed. I hope that future recommendations will also address risk factors in addition to BMI as well as frequency of screening for those who remain at increased risk but initially screen negative.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 16.

2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002.

3. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

4. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Hadelsman Y et al. Endocr Pract. 2015 Apr. 1-87. doi: 10.4158/EP15672.GL.

A new study shows disturbing evidence that malaria is becoming resistant to artemisinin, a drug critical for treatment in Africa. Although artemisinin resistance has long plagued the Mekong Delta, it is relatively new to Africa.
 

In a study published online April 14 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, researchers found that the typical 3-day course of treatment did not totally eradicate Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. A delayed clearance of the parasite was shown and found to be associated with a genetic mutation called Pfkelch13 R561H.

P. falciparum isolates with this mutation were found in 7.5% of infected children in one area of Rwanda. Further genomic studies showed that this mutation was locally acquired and did not emerge from Southeast Asia. This is well illustrated in a genomic tree published in Nature Medicine in August, 2020. That study reported data collected from adults from 2013 to 2015.

The delay in reporting the mutation was due, in part, to the burdensome process of whole-genome sequencing and transfection studies, Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Global Malaria Programme at WHO, and coauthor of the Nature Medicine study, said in an interview. In transfection studies, the mutation is inserted into parasites and the resultant effect is observed.

Aline Uwimana, MD, of Rwanda Biomedical Centre. is the lead author on both studies.

Meera Venkatesan, PhD, chief of the Case Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, President’s Malaria Initiative, USAID, noted that the Lancet Infectious Diseases study was a therapeutic efficacy study (TES) on samples from children from 2018. In an interview, Dr. Venkatesan explained that the study is noteworthy because it demonstrated the clinical significance of this mutation with delayed parasite clearance. She did note that although there was a lag in publication of the initial reports of artemisinin resistance mutations, that information – and its implications – was promptly shared with the global malaria research community, as are other findings of public health importance.

Although most of the children got better, this “partial resistance” emerged while patients were taking artemether–lumefantrine. This is a type of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) with two drugs intended to stall the emergence of resistance.

The delayed clearance will be a problem because it can contribute to the selection and spread of the partially resistant malaria parasite.

To slow the spread of artemisinin resistance, Dr. Ringwald emphasized the need to add a gametocidal drug to block the transmission to humans. “You give a single dose of primaquine, which will help stop the spread,” he said in an interview. “Continuing surveillance and mapping. These are priorities.”

So are following national guidelines and banning the use of artemisinin monotherapy. Dr. Ringwald stressed two additional priorities: the need for accurate diagnosis of malaria, and the need to use “good-quality drugs and to avoid substandard or fake medicines” by not purchasing drugs on the street.

Unscrupulous individuals are also selling artemisia preparations to treat or prevent COVID-19, when it has no such activity. Similarly, artemisia teas are sold as herbal remedies and nutraceuticals.

Philippe Guérin, MD, director of the Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN), listed the same recommendations, focusing a bit more on accurate detection of malaria and treatment with a multidrug regimen plus primaquine. You need “to have different first-line treatment (different ACTs) to avoid drug pressure” and resistance to the partner drug emerging, he said in an interview.

Such multiple first-line treatments rely on artemisinin in combination with various drugs, but this can cause some logistical challenges. Resistance is so problematic that the MORU (Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit) Tropical Health Network in Bangkok is studying triple drug combinations, adding amodiaquine or mefloquine to an artemisinin-based combination.

Dr. Guérin emphasized two other problems regarding the monitoring of malaria resistance in Africa (although not specifically Rwanda). One is the inability to do adequate surveillance in active conflict zones and areas of instability. The other is that COVID-19 is causing resources to be taken away from malaria and redirected to the more immediate crisis. By having to focus on the immediate viral pandemic, public-health authorities are missing the chance to address other critically important infectious diseases with large burdens – specifically malaria, TB, and HIV – which might have greater impacts on future generations.

Dr. Guérin noted that although we now have solid evidence of artemisinin resistance in Rwanda, and isolated cases in other African countries, we have little idea of the magnitude of the problem because testing is not widespread throughout parts of the continent.

What would widespread P. falciparum malaria resistance in Africa mean? Children are the most vulnerable to malaria, and account for two-thirds of the deaths. One study suggests there could be 78 million more cases over a 5-year period, along with far more deaths. Hence, there is a heightened urgency to implement the outlined strategies to prevent a looming catastrophe.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study shows disturbing evidence that malaria is becoming resistant to artemisinin, a drug critical for treatment in Africa. Although artemisinin resistance has long plagued the Mekong Delta, it is relatively new to Africa.
 

In a study published online April 14 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, researchers found that the typical 3-day course of treatment did not totally eradicate Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. A delayed clearance of the parasite was shown and found to be associated with a genetic mutation called Pfkelch13 R561H.

P. falciparum isolates with this mutation were found in 7.5% of infected children in one area of Rwanda. Further genomic studies showed that this mutation was locally acquired and did not emerge from Southeast Asia. This is well illustrated in a genomic tree published in Nature Medicine in August, 2020. That study reported data collected from adults from 2013 to 2015.

The delay in reporting the mutation was due, in part, to the burdensome process of whole-genome sequencing and transfection studies, Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Global Malaria Programme at WHO, and coauthor of the Nature Medicine study, said in an interview. In transfection studies, the mutation is inserted into parasites and the resultant effect is observed.

Aline Uwimana, MD, of Rwanda Biomedical Centre. is the lead author on both studies.

Meera Venkatesan, PhD, chief of the Case Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, President’s Malaria Initiative, USAID, noted that the Lancet Infectious Diseases study was a therapeutic efficacy study (TES) on samples from children from 2018. In an interview, Dr. Venkatesan explained that the study is noteworthy because it demonstrated the clinical significance of this mutation with delayed parasite clearance. She did note that although there was a lag in publication of the initial reports of artemisinin resistance mutations, that information – and its implications – was promptly shared with the global malaria research community, as are other findings of public health importance.

Although most of the children got better, this “partial resistance” emerged while patients were taking artemether–lumefantrine. This is a type of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) with two drugs intended to stall the emergence of resistance.

The delayed clearance will be a problem because it can contribute to the selection and spread of the partially resistant malaria parasite.

To slow the spread of artemisinin resistance, Dr. Ringwald emphasized the need to add a gametocidal drug to block the transmission to humans. “You give a single dose of primaquine, which will help stop the spread,” he said in an interview. “Continuing surveillance and mapping. These are priorities.”

So are following national guidelines and banning the use of artemisinin monotherapy. Dr. Ringwald stressed two additional priorities: the need for accurate diagnosis of malaria, and the need to use “good-quality drugs and to avoid substandard or fake medicines” by not purchasing drugs on the street.

Unscrupulous individuals are also selling artemisia preparations to treat or prevent COVID-19, when it has no such activity. Similarly, artemisia teas are sold as herbal remedies and nutraceuticals.

Philippe Guérin, MD, director of the Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN), listed the same recommendations, focusing a bit more on accurate detection of malaria and treatment with a multidrug regimen plus primaquine. You need “to have different first-line treatment (different ACTs) to avoid drug pressure” and resistance to the partner drug emerging, he said in an interview.

Such multiple first-line treatments rely on artemisinin in combination with various drugs, but this can cause some logistical challenges. Resistance is so problematic that the MORU (Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit) Tropical Health Network in Bangkok is studying triple drug combinations, adding amodiaquine or mefloquine to an artemisinin-based combination.

Dr. Guérin emphasized two other problems regarding the monitoring of malaria resistance in Africa (although not specifically Rwanda). One is the inability to do adequate surveillance in active conflict zones and areas of instability. The other is that COVID-19 is causing resources to be taken away from malaria and redirected to the more immediate crisis. By having to focus on the immediate viral pandemic, public-health authorities are missing the chance to address other critically important infectious diseases with large burdens – specifically malaria, TB, and HIV – which might have greater impacts on future generations.

Dr. Guérin noted that although we now have solid evidence of artemisinin resistance in Rwanda, and isolated cases in other African countries, we have little idea of the magnitude of the problem because testing is not widespread throughout parts of the continent.

What would widespread P. falciparum malaria resistance in Africa mean? Children are the most vulnerable to malaria, and account for two-thirds of the deaths. One study suggests there could be 78 million more cases over a 5-year period, along with far more deaths. Hence, there is a heightened urgency to implement the outlined strategies to prevent a looming catastrophe.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study shows disturbing evidence that malaria is becoming resistant to artemisinin, a drug critical for treatment in Africa. Although artemisinin resistance has long plagued the Mekong Delta, it is relatively new to Africa.
 

In a study published online April 14 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, researchers found that the typical 3-day course of treatment did not totally eradicate Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. A delayed clearance of the parasite was shown and found to be associated with a genetic mutation called Pfkelch13 R561H.

P. falciparum isolates with this mutation were found in 7.5% of infected children in one area of Rwanda. Further genomic studies showed that this mutation was locally acquired and did not emerge from Southeast Asia. This is well illustrated in a genomic tree published in Nature Medicine in August, 2020. That study reported data collected from adults from 2013 to 2015.

The delay in reporting the mutation was due, in part, to the burdensome process of whole-genome sequencing and transfection studies, Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Global Malaria Programme at WHO, and coauthor of the Nature Medicine study, said in an interview. In transfection studies, the mutation is inserted into parasites and the resultant effect is observed.

Aline Uwimana, MD, of Rwanda Biomedical Centre. is the lead author on both studies.

Meera Venkatesan, PhD, chief of the Case Management, Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, President’s Malaria Initiative, USAID, noted that the Lancet Infectious Diseases study was a therapeutic efficacy study (TES) on samples from children from 2018. In an interview, Dr. Venkatesan explained that the study is noteworthy because it demonstrated the clinical significance of this mutation with delayed parasite clearance. She did note that although there was a lag in publication of the initial reports of artemisinin resistance mutations, that information – and its implications – was promptly shared with the global malaria research community, as are other findings of public health importance.

Although most of the children got better, this “partial resistance” emerged while patients were taking artemether–lumefantrine. This is a type of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) with two drugs intended to stall the emergence of resistance.

The delayed clearance will be a problem because it can contribute to the selection and spread of the partially resistant malaria parasite.

To slow the spread of artemisinin resistance, Dr. Ringwald emphasized the need to add a gametocidal drug to block the transmission to humans. “You give a single dose of primaquine, which will help stop the spread,” he said in an interview. “Continuing surveillance and mapping. These are priorities.”

So are following national guidelines and banning the use of artemisinin monotherapy. Dr. Ringwald stressed two additional priorities: the need for accurate diagnosis of malaria, and the need to use “good-quality drugs and to avoid substandard or fake medicines” by not purchasing drugs on the street.

Unscrupulous individuals are also selling artemisia preparations to treat or prevent COVID-19, when it has no such activity. Similarly, artemisia teas are sold as herbal remedies and nutraceuticals.

Philippe Guérin, MD, director of the Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN), listed the same recommendations, focusing a bit more on accurate detection of malaria and treatment with a multidrug regimen plus primaquine. You need “to have different first-line treatment (different ACTs) to avoid drug pressure” and resistance to the partner drug emerging, he said in an interview.

Such multiple first-line treatments rely on artemisinin in combination with various drugs, but this can cause some logistical challenges. Resistance is so problematic that the MORU (Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit) Tropical Health Network in Bangkok is studying triple drug combinations, adding amodiaquine or mefloquine to an artemisinin-based combination.

Dr. Guérin emphasized two other problems regarding the monitoring of malaria resistance in Africa (although not specifically Rwanda). One is the inability to do adequate surveillance in active conflict zones and areas of instability. The other is that COVID-19 is causing resources to be taken away from malaria and redirected to the more immediate crisis. By having to focus on the immediate viral pandemic, public-health authorities are missing the chance to address other critically important infectious diseases with large burdens – specifically malaria, TB, and HIV – which might have greater impacts on future generations.

Dr. Guérin noted that although we now have solid evidence of artemisinin resistance in Rwanda, and isolated cases in other African countries, we have little idea of the magnitude of the problem because testing is not widespread throughout parts of the continent.

What would widespread P. falciparum malaria resistance in Africa mean? Children are the most vulnerable to malaria, and account for two-thirds of the deaths. One study suggests there could be 78 million more cases over a 5-year period, along with far more deaths. Hence, there is a heightened urgency to implement the outlined strategies to prevent a looming catastrophe.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with chronic migraine who turn to cannabis to relieve headache pain may be setting themselves up for medication overuse headache, preliminary research suggests, although the direction of the relationship is unclear. Researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University found a significant increase in the likelihood of medication overuse headache (rebound headache) in chronic migraine patients who use cannabis.

“This study shows that there is some kind of association between cannabis use and medication overuse headache in people with chronic migraine,” said lead investigator Niushen Zhang, MD, a clinical assistant professor at Stanford.

“But it is unclear at this time whether patients are using cannabis to treat medication overuse headache or if cannabis is contributing to the development medication overuse headache, or both,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Sixfold increase

“Medication overuse occurs in about 1% to 3% of the general population. It affects nearly one-third of the patients (mostly patients with chronic migraine) seen at tertiary care centers such as the Stanford Headache Center,” Dr. Zhang said.

From clinical observations, patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache appear to be concomitantly using cannabis products, yet there is currently very little research on this topic, she added.

To investigate, the researchers reviewed the records of 368 adults who experienced chronic migraine (15 or more migraine days per month) for at least 1 year. Of the 368 patients, 150 were using cannabis, and 218 were not. In addition, 212 had medication overuse headache, and 156 did not.

Results showed that patients who used cannabis were nearly six times more likely to have medication overuse headache than those who did not use cannabis (odds ratio, 5.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-10.43; P < .0001).

There were significant bidirectional relationships between current cannabis use, opioid use, and medication overuse headache.
 

Jury out on cannabis for migraine

Commenting on the findings, Teshamae Monteith, MD, of the University of Miami, noted, “With increased legalization, greater access, and less stigmatization, there are more individuals using cannabis for migraine, but there is no solid evidence to suggest that cannabis is effective for acute or preventive treatment of migraine.”

The study is “interesting,” Dr. Monteith said, but, owing to methodologic limitations, it is not clear that cannabis contributes to medication overuse headache. “Patients with medication overuse headaches may have more comorbidities, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, that are driving the cannabis use. The patients on cannabis also had higher rates of opiate use, which itself is a stronger contributor to medication overuse headache and may indicate the presence of other pain disorders,” Dr. Monteith said.

“It is not clear if these patients were appropriately treated with migraine prevention; patients that use cannabis sometimes report that they prefer to avoid pharmaceutical treatments, such as antidepressants, etc., used for migraine,” Dr. Monteith noted.

She said that at this point, she would advise clinicians to ask about cannabis use “and let patients know that we do not know enough about the long-term effects of cannabis on the migraine brain.”

Most importantly, Dr. Monteith said, she would “encourage clinicians to be sensitive to the high prevalence of migraine, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. If we can treat more effectively and prevent migraine progression, which includes addressing comorbidities, there would be a lot less medication overuse headache.”

Also weighing in on the study, Jessica Ailani, MD, director, Medstar Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, D.C., noted that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis is an effective acute or preventive treatment for migraine. “There is a suggestion that cannabis can help treat a migraine attack, but there is uncertainty about concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needed to achieve pain freedom,” Dr. Ailani said.

“There has also been some concern about interactions between CBD and other medications used to treat migraine and that CBD can cause a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome. These are reasons to be cautious with CBD,” Dr. Ailani added.

“At this time there is limited advice we can give our patients except that more studies need to be done. If cannabis is used, it should be reported, and medications that may interact with cannabis should be avoided. A headache calendar should be kept to ensure frequency of migraine and headache attacks do not go up,” said Dr. Ailani.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Zhang, Dr. Monteith, and Dr. Ailani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with chronic migraine who turn to cannabis to relieve headache pain may be setting themselves up for medication overuse headache, preliminary research suggests, although the direction of the relationship is unclear. Researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University found a significant increase in the likelihood of medication overuse headache (rebound headache) in chronic migraine patients who use cannabis.

“This study shows that there is some kind of association between cannabis use and medication overuse headache in people with chronic migraine,” said lead investigator Niushen Zhang, MD, a clinical assistant professor at Stanford.

“But it is unclear at this time whether patients are using cannabis to treat medication overuse headache or if cannabis is contributing to the development medication overuse headache, or both,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Sixfold increase

“Medication overuse occurs in about 1% to 3% of the general population. It affects nearly one-third of the patients (mostly patients with chronic migraine) seen at tertiary care centers such as the Stanford Headache Center,” Dr. Zhang said.

From clinical observations, patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache appear to be concomitantly using cannabis products, yet there is currently very little research on this topic, she added.

To investigate, the researchers reviewed the records of 368 adults who experienced chronic migraine (15 or more migraine days per month) for at least 1 year. Of the 368 patients, 150 were using cannabis, and 218 were not. In addition, 212 had medication overuse headache, and 156 did not.

Results showed that patients who used cannabis were nearly six times more likely to have medication overuse headache than those who did not use cannabis (odds ratio, 5.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-10.43; P < .0001).

There were significant bidirectional relationships between current cannabis use, opioid use, and medication overuse headache.
 

Jury out on cannabis for migraine

Commenting on the findings, Teshamae Monteith, MD, of the University of Miami, noted, “With increased legalization, greater access, and less stigmatization, there are more individuals using cannabis for migraine, but there is no solid evidence to suggest that cannabis is effective for acute or preventive treatment of migraine.”

The study is “interesting,” Dr. Monteith said, but, owing to methodologic limitations, it is not clear that cannabis contributes to medication overuse headache. “Patients with medication overuse headaches may have more comorbidities, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, that are driving the cannabis use. The patients on cannabis also had higher rates of opiate use, which itself is a stronger contributor to medication overuse headache and may indicate the presence of other pain disorders,” Dr. Monteith said.

“It is not clear if these patients were appropriately treated with migraine prevention; patients that use cannabis sometimes report that they prefer to avoid pharmaceutical treatments, such as antidepressants, etc., used for migraine,” Dr. Monteith noted.

She said that at this point, she would advise clinicians to ask about cannabis use “and let patients know that we do not know enough about the long-term effects of cannabis on the migraine brain.”

Most importantly, Dr. Monteith said, she would “encourage clinicians to be sensitive to the high prevalence of migraine, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. If we can treat more effectively and prevent migraine progression, which includes addressing comorbidities, there would be a lot less medication overuse headache.”

Also weighing in on the study, Jessica Ailani, MD, director, Medstar Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, D.C., noted that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis is an effective acute or preventive treatment for migraine. “There is a suggestion that cannabis can help treat a migraine attack, but there is uncertainty about concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needed to achieve pain freedom,” Dr. Ailani said.

“There has also been some concern about interactions between CBD and other medications used to treat migraine and that CBD can cause a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome. These are reasons to be cautious with CBD,” Dr. Ailani added.

“At this time there is limited advice we can give our patients except that more studies need to be done. If cannabis is used, it should be reported, and medications that may interact with cannabis should be avoided. A headache calendar should be kept to ensure frequency of migraine and headache attacks do not go up,” said Dr. Ailani.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Zhang, Dr. Monteith, and Dr. Ailani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with chronic migraine who turn to cannabis to relieve headache pain may be setting themselves up for medication overuse headache, preliminary research suggests, although the direction of the relationship is unclear. Researchers at Stanford (Calif.) University found a significant increase in the likelihood of medication overuse headache (rebound headache) in chronic migraine patients who use cannabis.

“This study shows that there is some kind of association between cannabis use and medication overuse headache in people with chronic migraine,” said lead investigator Niushen Zhang, MD, a clinical assistant professor at Stanford.

“But it is unclear at this time whether patients are using cannabis to treat medication overuse headache or if cannabis is contributing to the development medication overuse headache, or both,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Sixfold increase

“Medication overuse occurs in about 1% to 3% of the general population. It affects nearly one-third of the patients (mostly patients with chronic migraine) seen at tertiary care centers such as the Stanford Headache Center,” Dr. Zhang said.

From clinical observations, patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache appear to be concomitantly using cannabis products, yet there is currently very little research on this topic, she added.

To investigate, the researchers reviewed the records of 368 adults who experienced chronic migraine (15 or more migraine days per month) for at least 1 year. Of the 368 patients, 150 were using cannabis, and 218 were not. In addition, 212 had medication overuse headache, and 156 did not.

Results showed that patients who used cannabis were nearly six times more likely to have medication overuse headache than those who did not use cannabis (odds ratio, 5.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-10.43; P < .0001).

There were significant bidirectional relationships between current cannabis use, opioid use, and medication overuse headache.
 

Jury out on cannabis for migraine

Commenting on the findings, Teshamae Monteith, MD, of the University of Miami, noted, “With increased legalization, greater access, and less stigmatization, there are more individuals using cannabis for migraine, but there is no solid evidence to suggest that cannabis is effective for acute or preventive treatment of migraine.”

The study is “interesting,” Dr. Monteith said, but, owing to methodologic limitations, it is not clear that cannabis contributes to medication overuse headache. “Patients with medication overuse headaches may have more comorbidities, such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, that are driving the cannabis use. The patients on cannabis also had higher rates of opiate use, which itself is a stronger contributor to medication overuse headache and may indicate the presence of other pain disorders,” Dr. Monteith said.

“It is not clear if these patients were appropriately treated with migraine prevention; patients that use cannabis sometimes report that they prefer to avoid pharmaceutical treatments, such as antidepressants, etc., used for migraine,” Dr. Monteith noted.

She said that at this point, she would advise clinicians to ask about cannabis use “and let patients know that we do not know enough about the long-term effects of cannabis on the migraine brain.”

Most importantly, Dr. Monteith said, she would “encourage clinicians to be sensitive to the high prevalence of migraine, chronic migraine, and medication overuse. If we can treat more effectively and prevent migraine progression, which includes addressing comorbidities, there would be a lot less medication overuse headache.”

Also weighing in on the study, Jessica Ailani, MD, director, Medstar Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, D.C., noted that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis is an effective acute or preventive treatment for migraine. “There is a suggestion that cannabis can help treat a migraine attack, but there is uncertainty about concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) needed to achieve pain freedom,” Dr. Ailani said.

“There has also been some concern about interactions between CBD and other medications used to treat migraine and that CBD can cause a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome. These are reasons to be cautious with CBD,” Dr. Ailani added.

“At this time there is limited advice we can give our patients except that more studies need to be done. If cannabis is used, it should be reported, and medications that may interact with cannabis should be avoided. A headache calendar should be kept to ensure frequency of migraine and headache attacks do not go up,” said Dr. Ailani.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Zhang, Dr. Monteith, and Dr. Ailani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Among the patient population of long-haulers complaining of brain fog, muscular ache, and other issues, many had mild COVID-19. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.

Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19

Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.

To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.

Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.

She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

A panoply of different syndromes

In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.

Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.

One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
 

Looking for biologic markers

An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.

A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.

Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
 

The research task ahead

The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.

Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”

Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.