Federal Practitioner

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.

In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.

Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.

‘Shadow pandemic?’

The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.

“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.

The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.

IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.

Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.

Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
 

First peek

Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.

The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).

Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.

Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.

“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
 

Lethality indicators

Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.

“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.

“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”

She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”

Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.

“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.

She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.

“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.

Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.

In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.

Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.

‘Shadow pandemic?’

The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.

“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.

The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.

IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.

Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.

Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
 

First peek

Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.

The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).

Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.

Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.

“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
 

Lethality indicators

Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.

“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.

“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”

She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”

Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.

“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.

She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.

“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.

Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, at least during the early stages of the pandemic, new research suggests.

In April 2020, investigators surveyed over 1,750 individuals in intimate partner relationships. The survey was drawn from social media and email distribution lists. The researchers found that, of the roughly one-fifth who screened positive for IPV, half stated that the degree of victimization had remained the same since the COVID-19 outbreak; 17% reported that it had worsened; and one third reported that it had gotten better.

Those who reported worsening victimization said that sexual and physical violence, in particular, were exacerbated early in the pandemic’s course.

‘Shadow pandemic?’

The World Health Organization called upon health care organizations to be prepared to curb a potential IPV “shadow pandemic” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, no study has specifically evaluated whether self-reported victimization, particularly with regard to the severity and type of abuse, changed during the early period after COVID-19 social distancing polices were mandated.

“We scrambled right away when the pandemic hit because it was a unique opportunity to examine how behaviors change due to early stay-at-home policies; and, as a violence and injury epidemiologist, I am always curious about IPV, and this was a small subanalysis of that larger question,” Dr. Jetelina said.

The researchers recruited participants through their university and private social media accounts as well as professional distribution lists. Of those who completed the survey, 1,759 (mean age, 42 years) reported that they currently had an intimate partner. These participants were included in the study.

IPV was determined using the five-item Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Scream (E-HITS) construct. Respondents were asked how often their partner physically hurt them, insulted them, threatened them with harm, screamed or cursed at them, or forced them to engage in sexual activities.

Each item was answered using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores ranged from 1, indicating never, to 5, indicating frequently. Participants who scored ≥7 were considered IPV positive.

Participants were also asked whether IPV severity had gotten much/somewhat better, had remained the same, or had gotten somewhat/much worse.
 

First peek

Of the total sample, 18% screened positive for IPV. Of these, 54% reported that the victimization had remained the same, 17% reported that it had worsened, and 30% said it had improved.

The majority of IPV victims experienced being insulted (97%) or being screamed at (86%).

Among those who reported worsening of IPV, the risk for physical violence was 4.38 times higher than the risk for nonphysical victimization. The risk for sexual victimization was 2.31 times higher than the risk for nonsexual victimization.

Among those who reported that IPV had gotten better, the improvement was 3.47 times higher with regard to physical victimization, compared with nonphysical victimization. Dr. Jetelina acknowledged that the findings cannot be generalized to the broader population.

“This was a convenience sample, but it is the first peek into what is happening behind closed doors and a first step to hearing collecting data from the victims themselves to better understand this ‘shadow pandemic’ and inform creative efforts to create better services for them while they are in isolation,” she said.
 

Lethality indicators

Commenting on the study, Peter Cronholm, MD, MSCE, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned the use of a score of 7 on the E-HITS screen to determine the presence of IPV.

“I think there are other thresholds that might be important, and even low levels of sexual violence may be different than higher levels of emotional violence,” said Dr. Cronholm, who was not involved with the study.

“Someone may have been sexually assaulted frequently but not cross the threshold, so I think it would have been helpful for the researchers to look at different types of violence,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Jessica Palardy, LSW, program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, Philadelphia, said, the findings “solidify a trend we sensed was happening but couldn’t confirm.”

She said her agency’s clients “have had a wide variety of experiences, in terms of increases or decreases in victimization.”

Some clients were able to use the quarantine as an excuse to stay with family or friends and so could avoid seeing their partners. “Others indicated that because their partners were distracted by figuring out a new method of work, the tension shifted away from the victim,” said Ms. Palardy, who was not involved in the research.

“For those who saw an increase in victimization, we noticed that this increase also came with an increase in lethality indicators, such as strangulation, physical violence, use of weapons and substances, etc,” she said.

She emphasized that it is critical to screen people for IPV to ensure their safety.

“The goal is to connect people with resources before they are in a more lethal situation so that they can increase their safety and know their options,” Ms. Palardy said.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline and the Crisis Text Line are two sources of support for IPV victims.

Dr. Jetelina and coauthors, Dr. Cronholm, and Ms. Palardy reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Abnormal coagulation is a hallmark of COVID-19. Now, as we’re learning more about the high risk of thrombosis, physicians need to prescribe prophylaxis routinely in the hospital, stay alert, and act immediately when signs of trouble appear. “We must have a low suspicion for diagnosis and treatment of thrombosis,” said hematologist-oncologist Thomas DeLoughery, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland in a presentation at the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Still, research is sparse, and there are disagreements about the best strategies to protect patients, said DeLoughery. Physicians recognized coagulation problems early on during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, and they’re very common. According to DeLoughery, most patients have abnormal coagulation, very high D-dimer test results, and very high fibrinogen levels—even to the extraordinary level of 1,500 mg/dL, he said. And unlike in typical patients with septic shock, patients with thrombosis have a higher risk than bleeding.

A high D-dimer level is a major prognostic indicator of thrombosis and bad outcomes. “It’s representative of widespread coagulation activation, and it can be a sign of pulmonary thrombosis and local thrombosis happening at the site of the COVID infection,” he said.

DeLoughery highlighted an April 2020 study that found that “patients with D‐dimer levels ≥ 2.0 µg/mL had a higher incidence of mortality when compared with those who with D‐dimer levels < 2.0 µg/mL (12/67 vs 1/267; P < .001; hazard ratio, 51.5; 95% CI, 12.9‐206.7).”

Research also suggests that “there's something about getting COVID and going to the intensive care unit (ICU) that dramatically raises the risk of thrombosis,” he said, and the risk goes up over time in the ICU. Venous thrombosis isn’t the only risk. Relatively young patients with COVID have suffered from arterial thrombosis, even though they have minimal to no respiratory symptoms and no cardiovascular risk factors.

As for treatments, DeLoughery noted that thrombosis can occur despite standard prophylaxis, and patients may show resistance to heparin and, therefore, need massive doses. Still, there’s consensus that every patient with COVID-19 in the hospital should get thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), he said, and unfractionated heparin is appropriate for those with renal failure.

“The problem is everything else is controversial,” he said. For example, hematologists are split evenly on whether heparin dosing should be increased beyond standard protocol for patients in the ICU with 1.5 to 3 times normal D-dimers levels. He agreed with this approach but notes that some centers set their D-dimer triggers higher—at 3 to 6 times the normal level.

“The problem is that there’s limited data,” he said. “We have lots of observational studies suggesting benefits from higher doses, but we have no randomized trial data, and the observational studies are not uniform in their recommendations.”

What about outpatient prophylaxis? It appears that risk of thrombosis is < 1% percent when patients are out of the hospital, he said. “This is very reassuring that once the patient gets better, their prothrombotic drive goes away.”

Dr. DeLoughery highlighted the protocol at Oregon Health & Science University:

• Prophylaxis. Everyone with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital receives enoxaparin 40 mg daily. If the patient’s body mass index > 40, it should be increased to twice daily. For patients with renal failure, use unfractionated heparin 5000 u twice daily or enoxaparin 30 mg daily.
• In the ICU. Screen for deep vein thrombosis at admission and every 4 to 5 days thereafter. Increase enoxaparin to 40 mg twice daily, and to 1 mg/kg twice daily if signs of thrombosis develop, such as sudden deterioration, respiratory failure, the patient is too unstable to get a computed tomography, or with D-dimer > 3.0 µg/mL. “People’s thresholds for initiating empiric therapy differ, but this is an option,” he said.

For outpatient patients who are likely to be immobile for a month, 40 mg enoxaparin or 10 mg rivaroxaban are appropriate. “We’re not as aggressive as we used to be about outpatient prophylaxis,” he said.

Moving forward, he said, “this is an area where we really need clinical trials. There's just so much uncertainty.”

DeLoughery reported no disclosures.

Abnormal coagulation is a hallmark of COVID-19. Now, as we’re learning more about the high risk of thrombosis, physicians need to prescribe prophylaxis routinely in the hospital, stay alert, and act immediately when signs of trouble appear. “We must have a low suspicion for diagnosis and treatment of thrombosis,” said hematologist-oncologist Thomas DeLoughery, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland in a presentation at the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Still, research is sparse, and there are disagreements about the best strategies to protect patients, said DeLoughery. Physicians recognized coagulation problems early on during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, and they’re very common. According to DeLoughery, most patients have abnormal coagulation, very high D-dimer test results, and very high fibrinogen levels—even to the extraordinary level of 1,500 mg/dL, he said. And unlike in typical patients with septic shock, patients with thrombosis have a higher risk than bleeding.

A high D-dimer level is a major prognostic indicator of thrombosis and bad outcomes. “It’s representative of widespread coagulation activation, and it can be a sign of pulmonary thrombosis and local thrombosis happening at the site of the COVID infection,” he said.

DeLoughery highlighted an April 2020 study that found that “patients with D‐dimer levels ≥ 2.0 µg/mL had a higher incidence of mortality when compared with those who with D‐dimer levels < 2.0 µg/mL (12/67 vs 1/267; P < .001; hazard ratio, 51.5; 95% CI, 12.9‐206.7).”

Research also suggests that “there's something about getting COVID and going to the intensive care unit (ICU) that dramatically raises the risk of thrombosis,” he said, and the risk goes up over time in the ICU. Venous thrombosis isn’t the only risk. Relatively young patients with COVID have suffered from arterial thrombosis, even though they have minimal to no respiratory symptoms and no cardiovascular risk factors.

As for treatments, DeLoughery noted that thrombosis can occur despite standard prophylaxis, and patients may show resistance to heparin and, therefore, need massive doses. Still, there’s consensus that every patient with COVID-19 in the hospital should get thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), he said, and unfractionated heparin is appropriate for those with renal failure.

“The problem is everything else is controversial,” he said. For example, hematologists are split evenly on whether heparin dosing should be increased beyond standard protocol for patients in the ICU with 1.5 to 3 times normal D-dimers levels. He agreed with this approach but notes that some centers set their D-dimer triggers higher—at 3 to 6 times the normal level.

“The problem is that there’s limited data,” he said. “We have lots of observational studies suggesting benefits from higher doses, but we have no randomized trial data, and the observational studies are not uniform in their recommendations.”

What about outpatient prophylaxis? It appears that risk of thrombosis is < 1% percent when patients are out of the hospital, he said. “This is very reassuring that once the patient gets better, their prothrombotic drive goes away.”

Dr. DeLoughery highlighted the protocol at Oregon Health & Science University:

• Prophylaxis. Everyone with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital receives enoxaparin 40 mg daily. If the patient’s body mass index > 40, it should be increased to twice daily. For patients with renal failure, use unfractionated heparin 5000 u twice daily or enoxaparin 30 mg daily.
• In the ICU. Screen for deep vein thrombosis at admission and every 4 to 5 days thereafter. Increase enoxaparin to 40 mg twice daily, and to 1 mg/kg twice daily if signs of thrombosis develop, such as sudden deterioration, respiratory failure, the patient is too unstable to get a computed tomography, or with D-dimer > 3.0 µg/mL. “People’s thresholds for initiating empiric therapy differ, but this is an option,” he said.

For outpatient patients who are likely to be immobile for a month, 40 mg enoxaparin or 10 mg rivaroxaban are appropriate. “We’re not as aggressive as we used to be about outpatient prophylaxis,” he said.

Moving forward, he said, “this is an area where we really need clinical trials. There's just so much uncertainty.”

DeLoughery reported no disclosures.

Abnormal coagulation is a hallmark of COVID-19. Now, as we’re learning more about the high risk of thrombosis, physicians need to prescribe prophylaxis routinely in the hospital, stay alert, and act immediately when signs of trouble appear. “We must have a low suspicion for diagnosis and treatment of thrombosis,” said hematologist-oncologist Thomas DeLoughery, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland in a presentation at the virtual 2020 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Still, research is sparse, and there are disagreements about the best strategies to protect patients, said DeLoughery. Physicians recognized coagulation problems early on during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, and they’re very common. According to DeLoughery, most patients have abnormal coagulation, very high D-dimer test results, and very high fibrinogen levels—even to the extraordinary level of 1,500 mg/dL, he said. And unlike in typical patients with septic shock, patients with thrombosis have a higher risk than bleeding.

A high D-dimer level is a major prognostic indicator of thrombosis and bad outcomes. “It’s representative of widespread coagulation activation, and it can be a sign of pulmonary thrombosis and local thrombosis happening at the site of the COVID infection,” he said.

DeLoughery highlighted an April 2020 study that found that “patients with D‐dimer levels ≥ 2.0 µg/mL had a higher incidence of mortality when compared with those who with D‐dimer levels < 2.0 µg/mL (12/67 vs 1/267; P < .001; hazard ratio, 51.5; 95% CI, 12.9‐206.7).”

Research also suggests that “there's something about getting COVID and going to the intensive care unit (ICU) that dramatically raises the risk of thrombosis,” he said, and the risk goes up over time in the ICU. Venous thrombosis isn’t the only risk. Relatively young patients with COVID have suffered from arterial thrombosis, even though they have minimal to no respiratory symptoms and no cardiovascular risk factors.

As for treatments, DeLoughery noted that thrombosis can occur despite standard prophylaxis, and patients may show resistance to heparin and, therefore, need massive doses. Still, there’s consensus that every patient with COVID-19 in the hospital should get thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), he said, and unfractionated heparin is appropriate for those with renal failure.

“The problem is everything else is controversial,” he said. For example, hematologists are split evenly on whether heparin dosing should be increased beyond standard protocol for patients in the ICU with 1.5 to 3 times normal D-dimers levels. He agreed with this approach but notes that some centers set their D-dimer triggers higher—at 3 to 6 times the normal level.

“The problem is that there’s limited data,” he said. “We have lots of observational studies suggesting benefits from higher doses, but we have no randomized trial data, and the observational studies are not uniform in their recommendations.”

What about outpatient prophylaxis? It appears that risk of thrombosis is < 1% percent when patients are out of the hospital, he said. “This is very reassuring that once the patient gets better, their prothrombotic drive goes away.”

Dr. DeLoughery highlighted the protocol at Oregon Health & Science University:

• Prophylaxis. Everyone with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital receives enoxaparin 40 mg daily. If the patient’s body mass index > 40, it should be increased to twice daily. For patients with renal failure, use unfractionated heparin 5000 u twice daily or enoxaparin 30 mg daily.
• In the ICU. Screen for deep vein thrombosis at admission and every 4 to 5 days thereafter. Increase enoxaparin to 40 mg twice daily, and to 1 mg/kg twice daily if signs of thrombosis develop, such as sudden deterioration, respiratory failure, the patient is too unstable to get a computed tomography, or with D-dimer > 3.0 µg/mL. “People’s thresholds for initiating empiric therapy differ, but this is an option,” he said.

For outpatient patients who are likely to be immobile for a month, 40 mg enoxaparin or 10 mg rivaroxaban are appropriate. “We’re not as aggressive as we used to be about outpatient prophylaxis,” he said.

Moving forward, he said, “this is an area where we really need clinical trials. There's just so much uncertainty.”

DeLoughery reported no disclosures.

Continued use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or methotrexate is acceptable in most patients who acquire COVID-19, results of a recent cohort study suggest.

Among patients on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or methotrexate who developed COVID-19, death and hospitalization rates were similar to matched COVID-19 patients not on those medications, according to authors of the multicenter research network study.

Reassuringly, likelihood of hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different between 214 patients with COVID-19 taking TNFi or methotrexate and 31,862 matched COVID-19 patients not on those medications, according to the investigators, whose findings were published recently in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Zachary Zinn, MD, corresponding author on the study, said in an interview that the findings suggest these medicines can be safely continued in the majority of patients taking them during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If you’re a prescribing physician who’s giving patients TNF inhibitors or methotrexate or both, I think you can comfortably tell your patients there is good data that these do not lead to worse outcomes if you get COVID-19,” said Dr. Zinn, associate professor in the department of dermatology at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

The findings from these researchers corroborate a growing body of evidence suggesting that immunosuppressive treatments can be continued in patients with dermatologic and rheumatic conditions.

In recent guidance from the National Psoriasis Foundation, released Sept. 4, an expert consensus panel cited 15 studies that they said suggested that treatments for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.”

That said, the data to date are mainly from small case series and registry studies based on spontaneously reported COVID-19 cases, which suggests a continued need for shared decision making. In addition, chronic systemic corticosteroids should be avoided for management of psoriatic arthritis, the guidance states, based on rheumatology and gastroenterology literature suggesting this treatment is linked to worse COVID-19 outcomes.

In the interview, Dr. Zinn noted that some previous studies of immunosuppressive treatments in patients who acquire COVID-19 have aggregated data on numerous classes of biologic medications, lessening the strength of data for each specific medication.

“By focusing specifically on TNF inhibitors and methotrexate, this study gives better guidance to prescribers of these medications,” he said.

To see whether TNFi or methotrexate increased risk of worsened COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Zinn and coinvestigators evaluated data from TriNetX, a research network that includes approximately 53 million unique patient records, predominantly in the United States.

They identified 32,076 adult patients with COVID-19, of whom 214 had recent exposure to TNFi or methotrexate. The patients in the TNFi/methotrexate group were similar in age to those without exposure to those drugs, at 55.1 versus 53.2 years, respectively. However, patients in the drug exposure group were more frequently White, female, and had substantially more comorbidities, including diabetes and obesity, according to the investigators.

Nevertheless, the likelihood of hospitalization was not statistically different in the TNFi/methotrexate group versus the non-TNFi/methotrexate group, with a risk ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.22; P = .5260).

Likewise, the likelihood of death was not different between groups, with a RR of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.42-1.78; P = .6958). Looking at subgroups of patients exposed to TNFi or methotrexate only didn’t change the results, the investigators added.

Taken together, the findings argue against interruption of these treatments because of the fear of the possibly worse COVID-19 outcomes, the investigators concluded, although they emphasized the need for more research.

“Because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, there is a desperate need for evidence-based data on biologic and immunomodulator exposure in the setting of COVID-19 infection,” they wrote.

Dr. Zinn and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding sources related to the study.

SOURCE: Zinn Z et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.009.

Continued use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or methotrexate is acceptable in most patients who acquire COVID-19, results of a recent cohort study suggest.

Among patients on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or methotrexate who developed COVID-19, death and hospitalization rates were similar to matched COVID-19 patients not on those medications, according to authors of the multicenter research network study.

Reassuringly, likelihood of hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different between 214 patients with COVID-19 taking TNFi or methotrexate and 31,862 matched COVID-19 patients not on those medications, according to the investigators, whose findings were published recently in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Zachary Zinn, MD, corresponding author on the study, said in an interview that the findings suggest these medicines can be safely continued in the majority of patients taking them during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If you’re a prescribing physician who’s giving patients TNF inhibitors or methotrexate or both, I think you can comfortably tell your patients there is good data that these do not lead to worse outcomes if you get COVID-19,” said Dr. Zinn, associate professor in the department of dermatology at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

The findings from these researchers corroborate a growing body of evidence suggesting that immunosuppressive treatments can be continued in patients with dermatologic and rheumatic conditions.

In recent guidance from the National Psoriasis Foundation, released Sept. 4, an expert consensus panel cited 15 studies that they said suggested that treatments for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.”

That said, the data to date are mainly from small case series and registry studies based on spontaneously reported COVID-19 cases, which suggests a continued need for shared decision making. In addition, chronic systemic corticosteroids should be avoided for management of psoriatic arthritis, the guidance states, based on rheumatology and gastroenterology literature suggesting this treatment is linked to worse COVID-19 outcomes.

In the interview, Dr. Zinn noted that some previous studies of immunosuppressive treatments in patients who acquire COVID-19 have aggregated data on numerous classes of biologic medications, lessening the strength of data for each specific medication.

“By focusing specifically on TNF inhibitors and methotrexate, this study gives better guidance to prescribers of these medications,” he said.

To see whether TNFi or methotrexate increased risk of worsened COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Zinn and coinvestigators evaluated data from TriNetX, a research network that includes approximately 53 million unique patient records, predominantly in the United States.

They identified 32,076 adult patients with COVID-19, of whom 214 had recent exposure to TNFi or methotrexate. The patients in the TNFi/methotrexate group were similar in age to those without exposure to those drugs, at 55.1 versus 53.2 years, respectively. However, patients in the drug exposure group were more frequently White, female, and had substantially more comorbidities, including diabetes and obesity, according to the investigators.

Nevertheless, the likelihood of hospitalization was not statistically different in the TNFi/methotrexate group versus the non-TNFi/methotrexate group, with a risk ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.22; P = .5260).

Likewise, the likelihood of death was not different between groups, with a RR of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.42-1.78; P = .6958). Looking at subgroups of patients exposed to TNFi or methotrexate only didn’t change the results, the investigators added.

Taken together, the findings argue against interruption of these treatments because of the fear of the possibly worse COVID-19 outcomes, the investigators concluded, although they emphasized the need for more research.

“Because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, there is a desperate need for evidence-based data on biologic and immunomodulator exposure in the setting of COVID-19 infection,” they wrote.

Dr. Zinn and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding sources related to the study.

SOURCE: Zinn Z et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.009.

Continued use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or methotrexate is acceptable in most patients who acquire COVID-19, results of a recent cohort study suggest.

Among patients on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or methotrexate who developed COVID-19, death and hospitalization rates were similar to matched COVID-19 patients not on those medications, according to authors of the multicenter research network study.

Reassuringly, likelihood of hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different between 214 patients with COVID-19 taking TNFi or methotrexate and 31,862 matched COVID-19 patients not on those medications, according to the investigators, whose findings were published recently in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Zachary Zinn, MD, corresponding author on the study, said in an interview that the findings suggest these medicines can be safely continued in the majority of patients taking them during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If you’re a prescribing physician who’s giving patients TNF inhibitors or methotrexate or both, I think you can comfortably tell your patients there is good data that these do not lead to worse outcomes if you get COVID-19,” said Dr. Zinn, associate professor in the department of dermatology at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

The findings from these researchers corroborate a growing body of evidence suggesting that immunosuppressive treatments can be continued in patients with dermatologic and rheumatic conditions.

In recent guidance from the National Psoriasis Foundation, released Sept. 4, an expert consensus panel cited 15 studies that they said suggested that treatments for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.”

That said, the data to date are mainly from small case series and registry studies based on spontaneously reported COVID-19 cases, which suggests a continued need for shared decision making. In addition, chronic systemic corticosteroids should be avoided for management of psoriatic arthritis, the guidance states, based on rheumatology and gastroenterology literature suggesting this treatment is linked to worse COVID-19 outcomes.

In the interview, Dr. Zinn noted that some previous studies of immunosuppressive treatments in patients who acquire COVID-19 have aggregated data on numerous classes of biologic medications, lessening the strength of data for each specific medication.

“By focusing specifically on TNF inhibitors and methotrexate, this study gives better guidance to prescribers of these medications,” he said.

To see whether TNFi or methotrexate increased risk of worsened COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Zinn and coinvestigators evaluated data from TriNetX, a research network that includes approximately 53 million unique patient records, predominantly in the United States.

They identified 32,076 adult patients with COVID-19, of whom 214 had recent exposure to TNFi or methotrexate. The patients in the TNFi/methotrexate group were similar in age to those without exposure to those drugs, at 55.1 versus 53.2 years, respectively. However, patients in the drug exposure group were more frequently White, female, and had substantially more comorbidities, including diabetes and obesity, according to the investigators.

Nevertheless, the likelihood of hospitalization was not statistically different in the TNFi/methotrexate group versus the non-TNFi/methotrexate group, with a risk ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.22; P = .5260).

Likewise, the likelihood of death was not different between groups, with a RR of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.42-1.78; P = .6958). Looking at subgroups of patients exposed to TNFi or methotrexate only didn’t change the results, the investigators added.

Taken together, the findings argue against interruption of these treatments because of the fear of the possibly worse COVID-19 outcomes, the investigators concluded, although they emphasized the need for more research.

“Because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, there is a desperate need for evidence-based data on biologic and immunomodulator exposure in the setting of COVID-19 infection,” they wrote.

Dr. Zinn and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding sources related to the study.

SOURCE: Zinn Z et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.009.

Consuming more milk, cheese, or yogurt might be a simple, low-cost way to boost bone health and prevent some falls and fractures in older people living in long-term care facilities, according to a new randomized study from Australia.

“Supplementation using dairy foods is likely to be an effective, safe, widely available, and low cost means of curtailing the public health burden of fractures,” said Sandra Iuliano, PhD, from the University of Melbourne, who presented the findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting.

The researchers randomized 60 old-age institutions to provide residents with their usual menus or a diet with more milk, cheese, or yogurt for 2 years.

The residents with the altered menus increased their dairy consumption from 2 servings/day to 3.5 servings/day, which was reflected in a greater intake of calcium and protein, along with fewer falls, total fractures, and hip fractures than in the control group.

“This is the first randomized trial to show a benefit of dairy food intake on risk of fractures,” Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

The results are “not surprising” because supplements of calcium plus vitamin D have reduced the risk of fractures in a similar population of older residents living in special living facilities, said Dr. Willett, coauthor of a recent review article, “Milk and Health,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It is important for everyone to have adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D,” he said. However, “it isn’t clear whether it is better to ensure this clinically by supplements, overall healthy diet, or extra dairy intake,” he added, noting that consuming the amount of dairy given in this Australian study is not environmentally sustainable.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that the Australian researchers studied the impact of increased dietary calcium and protein, not the impact of vitamin D via supplements.

“This is progress toward getting interventions to our most needy residents to prevent fractures – probably the most compelling data that we have had in a number of years,” he noted.

The current study shows “it’s not [the] vitamin D,” because the residents had initial low calcium levels but normal vitamin D levels. “For too long we’ve been stuck on the idea that it is [increasing] vitamin D in the elderly that causes a reduction in fractures,” said Dr. Rosen. “The data are not very supportive of it, but people continue to think that’s the most important element.”

On the other hand, the current study raises certain questions. “What we don’t know is, is it the calcium, or is it the protein, or the combination, that had an impact?”

Would upping dairy decrease falls?

Older adults living in institutions have a high risk of falls and fractures, including hip fractures, and “malnutrition is common,” said Dr. Iuliano during her presentation.

Prior studies have reported that such residents have a daily dietary calcium intake of 635 mg (half the recommended 1,300 mg), a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight (less than the recommended 1 g/kg body weight), and a dairy intake of 1.5 servings (about a third of the recommended amount), she said.

The group hypothesized that upping dairy intake of elderly residents living in long-term care institutions would reduce the risk of fractures. They performed a 2-year cluster-randomized trial in 60 facilities in Melbourne and surrounding areas.

Half gave their 3,301 residents menus with a higher dairy content, and the other half gave their 3,894 residents (controls) the usual menus.

The residents in both groups had similar characteristics: they were a mean age of 87 years and 68% were women. A subgroup had blood tests and bone morphology studies at baseline and 1 year.

Researchers verified nutrient intake by analyzing the menus and doing plate waste analysis for a subgroup, and they determined the number of falls and fractures from incident and hospital x-ray reports, respectively.
 

One-third fewer fractures in the higher-dairy group

At the study start, residents in both groups had similar vitamin D levels (72 nmol/L) and bone morphology. They were consuming two servings of dairy food and drink a day, where a serving was 250 mL of milk (including lactose-free milk) or 200 g of yogurt or 40 g of cheese.

Their initial daily calcium intake was 650 mg, which stayed the same in the control group, but increased to >1100 mg in the intervention group.

Their initial daily protein intake was around 59 g, which remained the same in the control group, but increased to about 72 grams (1.1 g/kg body weight) in the intervention group.

At 2 years, the 1.5 servings/day increase in dairy intake in the control versus intervention group was associated with an 11% reduction in falls (62% vs. 57%), a 33% reduction in fractures (5.2% vs. 3.7%), a 46% reduction in hip fractures (2.4% vs. 1.3%), and no difference in mortality (28% in both groups).

The intervention was also associated with a slowing in bone loss and an increase in insulinlike growth factor–1.
 

Four dairy servings a day “is high”

Dr. Willett said that “it is reasonable for seniors to take one or two servings of dairy per day, but four servings per day, as in this study, is probably not necessary.”

Moreover, “dairy production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and even two servings per day would not be environmentally sustainable if everyone were to consume this amount,” he observed.

“Because the world is facing an existential threat from climate change, general advice to consume high amounts of dairy products would be irresponsible as we can get all essential nutrients from other sources,” he added. “That said, modest amounts of dairy foods, such as one to two servings per day could be reasonable. There is some suggestive evidence that dairy in the form of yogurt may have particular benefits.”

The study was funded by Melbourne University and various dietary councils. Dr. Iuliano reported receiving lecture fees from Abbott. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Willett reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consuming more milk, cheese, or yogurt might be a simple, low-cost way to boost bone health and prevent some falls and fractures in older people living in long-term care facilities, according to a new randomized study from Australia.

“Supplementation using dairy foods is likely to be an effective, safe, widely available, and low cost means of curtailing the public health burden of fractures,” said Sandra Iuliano, PhD, from the University of Melbourne, who presented the findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting.

The researchers randomized 60 old-age institutions to provide residents with their usual menus or a diet with more milk, cheese, or yogurt for 2 years.

The residents with the altered menus increased their dairy consumption from 2 servings/day to 3.5 servings/day, which was reflected in a greater intake of calcium and protein, along with fewer falls, total fractures, and hip fractures than in the control group.

“This is the first randomized trial to show a benefit of dairy food intake on risk of fractures,” Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

The results are “not surprising” because supplements of calcium plus vitamin D have reduced the risk of fractures in a similar population of older residents living in special living facilities, said Dr. Willett, coauthor of a recent review article, “Milk and Health,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It is important for everyone to have adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D,” he said. However, “it isn’t clear whether it is better to ensure this clinically by supplements, overall healthy diet, or extra dairy intake,” he added, noting that consuming the amount of dairy given in this Australian study is not environmentally sustainable.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that the Australian researchers studied the impact of increased dietary calcium and protein, not the impact of vitamin D via supplements.

“This is progress toward getting interventions to our most needy residents to prevent fractures – probably the most compelling data that we have had in a number of years,” he noted.

The current study shows “it’s not [the] vitamin D,” because the residents had initial low calcium levels but normal vitamin D levels. “For too long we’ve been stuck on the idea that it is [increasing] vitamin D in the elderly that causes a reduction in fractures,” said Dr. Rosen. “The data are not very supportive of it, but people continue to think that’s the most important element.”

On the other hand, the current study raises certain questions. “What we don’t know is, is it the calcium, or is it the protein, or the combination, that had an impact?”

Would upping dairy decrease falls?

Older adults living in institutions have a high risk of falls and fractures, including hip fractures, and “malnutrition is common,” said Dr. Iuliano during her presentation.

Prior studies have reported that such residents have a daily dietary calcium intake of 635 mg (half the recommended 1,300 mg), a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight (less than the recommended 1 g/kg body weight), and a dairy intake of 1.5 servings (about a third of the recommended amount), she said.

The group hypothesized that upping dairy intake of elderly residents living in long-term care institutions would reduce the risk of fractures. They performed a 2-year cluster-randomized trial in 60 facilities in Melbourne and surrounding areas.

Half gave their 3,301 residents menus with a higher dairy content, and the other half gave their 3,894 residents (controls) the usual menus.

The residents in both groups had similar characteristics: they were a mean age of 87 years and 68% were women. A subgroup had blood tests and bone morphology studies at baseline and 1 year.

Researchers verified nutrient intake by analyzing the menus and doing plate waste analysis for a subgroup, and they determined the number of falls and fractures from incident and hospital x-ray reports, respectively.
 

One-third fewer fractures in the higher-dairy group

At the study start, residents in both groups had similar vitamin D levels (72 nmol/L) and bone morphology. They were consuming two servings of dairy food and drink a day, where a serving was 250 mL of milk (including lactose-free milk) or 200 g of yogurt or 40 g of cheese.

Their initial daily calcium intake was 650 mg, which stayed the same in the control group, but increased to >1100 mg in the intervention group.

Their initial daily protein intake was around 59 g, which remained the same in the control group, but increased to about 72 grams (1.1 g/kg body weight) in the intervention group.

At 2 years, the 1.5 servings/day increase in dairy intake in the control versus intervention group was associated with an 11% reduction in falls (62% vs. 57%), a 33% reduction in fractures (5.2% vs. 3.7%), a 46% reduction in hip fractures (2.4% vs. 1.3%), and no difference in mortality (28% in both groups).

The intervention was also associated with a slowing in bone loss and an increase in insulinlike growth factor–1.
 

Four dairy servings a day “is high”

Dr. Willett said that “it is reasonable for seniors to take one or two servings of dairy per day, but four servings per day, as in this study, is probably not necessary.”

Moreover, “dairy production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and even two servings per day would not be environmentally sustainable if everyone were to consume this amount,” he observed.

“Because the world is facing an existential threat from climate change, general advice to consume high amounts of dairy products would be irresponsible as we can get all essential nutrients from other sources,” he added. “That said, modest amounts of dairy foods, such as one to two servings per day could be reasonable. There is some suggestive evidence that dairy in the form of yogurt may have particular benefits.”

The study was funded by Melbourne University and various dietary councils. Dr. Iuliano reported receiving lecture fees from Abbott. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Willett reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consuming more milk, cheese, or yogurt might be a simple, low-cost way to boost bone health and prevent some falls and fractures in older people living in long-term care facilities, according to a new randomized study from Australia.

“Supplementation using dairy foods is likely to be an effective, safe, widely available, and low cost means of curtailing the public health burden of fractures,” said Sandra Iuliano, PhD, from the University of Melbourne, who presented the findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting.

The researchers randomized 60 old-age institutions to provide residents with their usual menus or a diet with more milk, cheese, or yogurt for 2 years.

The residents with the altered menus increased their dairy consumption from 2 servings/day to 3.5 servings/day, which was reflected in a greater intake of calcium and protein, along with fewer falls, total fractures, and hip fractures than in the control group.

“This is the first randomized trial to show a benefit of dairy food intake on risk of fractures,” Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

The results are “not surprising” because supplements of calcium plus vitamin D have reduced the risk of fractures in a similar population of older residents living in special living facilities, said Dr. Willett, coauthor of a recent review article, “Milk and Health,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It is important for everyone to have adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D,” he said. However, “it isn’t clear whether it is better to ensure this clinically by supplements, overall healthy diet, or extra dairy intake,” he added, noting that consuming the amount of dairy given in this Australian study is not environmentally sustainable.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that the Australian researchers studied the impact of increased dietary calcium and protein, not the impact of vitamin D via supplements.

“This is progress toward getting interventions to our most needy residents to prevent fractures – probably the most compelling data that we have had in a number of years,” he noted.

The current study shows “it’s not [the] vitamin D,” because the residents had initial low calcium levels but normal vitamin D levels. “For too long we’ve been stuck on the idea that it is [increasing] vitamin D in the elderly that causes a reduction in fractures,” said Dr. Rosen. “The data are not very supportive of it, but people continue to think that’s the most important element.”

On the other hand, the current study raises certain questions. “What we don’t know is, is it the calcium, or is it the protein, or the combination, that had an impact?”

Would upping dairy decrease falls?

Older adults living in institutions have a high risk of falls and fractures, including hip fractures, and “malnutrition is common,” said Dr. Iuliano during her presentation.

Prior studies have reported that such residents have a daily dietary calcium intake of 635 mg (half the recommended 1,300 mg), a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight (less than the recommended 1 g/kg body weight), and a dairy intake of 1.5 servings (about a third of the recommended amount), she said.

The group hypothesized that upping dairy intake of elderly residents living in long-term care institutions would reduce the risk of fractures. They performed a 2-year cluster-randomized trial in 60 facilities in Melbourne and surrounding areas.

Half gave their 3,301 residents menus with a higher dairy content, and the other half gave their 3,894 residents (controls) the usual menus.

The residents in both groups had similar characteristics: they were a mean age of 87 years and 68% were women. A subgroup had blood tests and bone morphology studies at baseline and 1 year.

Researchers verified nutrient intake by analyzing the menus and doing plate waste analysis for a subgroup, and they determined the number of falls and fractures from incident and hospital x-ray reports, respectively.
 

One-third fewer fractures in the higher-dairy group

At the study start, residents in both groups had similar vitamin D levels (72 nmol/L) and bone morphology. They were consuming two servings of dairy food and drink a day, where a serving was 250 mL of milk (including lactose-free milk) or 200 g of yogurt or 40 g of cheese.

Their initial daily calcium intake was 650 mg, which stayed the same in the control group, but increased to >1100 mg in the intervention group.

Their initial daily protein intake was around 59 g, which remained the same in the control group, but increased to about 72 grams (1.1 g/kg body weight) in the intervention group.

At 2 years, the 1.5 servings/day increase in dairy intake in the control versus intervention group was associated with an 11% reduction in falls (62% vs. 57%), a 33% reduction in fractures (5.2% vs. 3.7%), a 46% reduction in hip fractures (2.4% vs. 1.3%), and no difference in mortality (28% in both groups).

The intervention was also associated with a slowing in bone loss and an increase in insulinlike growth factor–1.
 

Four dairy servings a day “is high”

Dr. Willett said that “it is reasonable for seniors to take one or two servings of dairy per day, but four servings per day, as in this study, is probably not necessary.”

Moreover, “dairy production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and even two servings per day would not be environmentally sustainable if everyone were to consume this amount,” he observed.

“Because the world is facing an existential threat from climate change, general advice to consume high amounts of dairy products would be irresponsible as we can get all essential nutrients from other sources,” he added. “That said, modest amounts of dairy foods, such as one to two servings per day could be reasonable. There is some suggestive evidence that dairy in the form of yogurt may have particular benefits.”

The study was funded by Melbourne University and various dietary councils. Dr. Iuliano reported receiving lecture fees from Abbott. Dr. Rosen and Dr. Willett reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is embracing clinical trials with a focus on oncology, and patients will benefit from new priorities and programs, VA officials reported at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) virtual meeting. “The whole model is one that is far more proactive,” said Carolyn Clancy, MD, Under Secretary for Health for Discovery, Education, and Affiliate Networks.

According to Clancy, the department’s top research priority is to increase veteran access to high-quality clinical trials. “Priority number 2 is increasing the real-world impact of VA research,” she said. “Our commitment to veterans and the taxpayers is to reverse and shorten the [research-to-implementation] timeline. And the third priority is to put VA data to work for veterans, not just through people who work in VA and Veterans Health Administration, but through other researchers who can have access to them.”

To meet these goals, VA is engaging in multiple research programs and collaborations. Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScD, the VA chief research and development officer, highlighted a number of the projects in a separate AVAHO meeting presentation, including:

• The National Cancer Institute and VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE), an interagency collaboration between the VA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This program established a network of sites to help enrolled veterans take part in NCI-supported clinical trials. “It really got up and running in 2018, and I’m proud to say that over 250 veterans have been enrolled, and enrollment exceeds that at non-NAVIGATE sites,” Ramoni reported. “Clearly, the additional support that these sites are getting is really helping to achieve the outcome of getting more veterans access to these trials.” However, she said, some areas of the nation aren’t yet covered by the program.
• The Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP), established through a partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The foundation provided a $50 million investment. “This program ensures that veterans, no matter where they are, get best-in-class prostate cancer care,” Ramoni explained. “The initial focus was ensuring that men get sequencing if they have metastatic prostate cancer, and that they get access to clinical trials. The really distinguishing factor about POPCaP is that it has built a vibrant community of clinicians, researchers and program offices. The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.” More POPCaP hubs are in development, she said.
• PATCH (Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice), a program funded by the VA and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. “The whole purpose of PATCH is to create this network of sites to systematically go through different clinical trials that are biomarker-driven,” Ramoni said. “One of the great things about PATCH is that it’s leveraging the genetics databases to help proactively identify men who might qualify for these trials and to find them wherever they might be across the system so they have access to these trials.” She also praised the program’s commitment to collaboration and mentorship. “If you’re new to putting together clinical trials concepts or to submitting merit proposals to VA for funding, PATCH is a great place to get into a community that’s supportive and wants to help you succeed.”
• The VA Phenomics Library. This library, based at the Boston VA Medical Center, focuses on improving the analysis of “messy” electronic health record data, Ramoni noted. “There are automated algorithms that go through and help you clean up that data to make sense of it,” she said. “The problem is that it’s really been an every-person-for-himself-or-herself system. Each researcher who needed these phenotypes was creating his or her own.” The Phenomics Library will promote sharing “so there’s not going to be as much wasted time duplicating effort,” she said. “By the end of fiscal year 2021, we will have over 1,000 curated phenotypes in there. We hope that will be a great resource for the oncology community as well as many other communities.”
• Access to Clinical Trials (ACT) for Veterans. “This program, which began a couple of years ago, has really succeeded,” Ramoni said. “We were focusing on decreasing the time it takes to start up multi-site industry trials. When we got started with ACT, it was taking over 200 days to get started. And now, just a couple years later, we are well under 100 days, which is within industry standards.” Also, she said, the VA established a Partnered Research Program office, “which serves to interact with our industry partners and really guide them through the VA system, which can be complex if you’re approaching it for the first time.”

In a separate presentation, Krissa Caroff, MS, CPC, program manager of the Partnered Research Program, said it had quickened the process of implementing clinical trials by tackling roadblocks such as the need for multiple master agreements to be signed. Central coordination has been key, she said, “and we are working closely to ensure that we when have a multisite trial, all the VA sites are utilizing the same single IRB [institutional review board]. We’ve also identified the critical information that we need to collect from industry in order for us to evaluate a trial.”

What’s next? “We really are going to be focusing on oncology trials,” Ramoni insisted. “This is a high priority for us.” She added: “Please share your feedback and experiences with us. And also please communicate amongst your colleagues within your organization to explain how we’re standardizing things within VA.”

The speakers reported no relevant disclosures.  

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is embracing clinical trials with a focus on oncology, and patients will benefit from new priorities and programs, VA officials reported at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) virtual meeting. “The whole model is one that is far more proactive,” said Carolyn Clancy, MD, Under Secretary for Health for Discovery, Education, and Affiliate Networks.

According to Clancy, the department’s top research priority is to increase veteran access to high-quality clinical trials. “Priority number 2 is increasing the real-world impact of VA research,” she said. “Our commitment to veterans and the taxpayers is to reverse and shorten the [research-to-implementation] timeline. And the third priority is to put VA data to work for veterans, not just through people who work in VA and Veterans Health Administration, but through other researchers who can have access to them.”

To meet these goals, VA is engaging in multiple research programs and collaborations. Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScD, the VA chief research and development officer, highlighted a number of the projects in a separate AVAHO meeting presentation, including:

• The National Cancer Institute and VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE), an interagency collaboration between the VA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This program established a network of sites to help enrolled veterans take part in NCI-supported clinical trials. “It really got up and running in 2018, and I’m proud to say that over 250 veterans have been enrolled, and enrollment exceeds that at non-NAVIGATE sites,” Ramoni reported. “Clearly, the additional support that these sites are getting is really helping to achieve the outcome of getting more veterans access to these trials.” However, she said, some areas of the nation aren’t yet covered by the program.
• The Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP), established through a partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The foundation provided a $50 million investment. “This program ensures that veterans, no matter where they are, get best-in-class prostate cancer care,” Ramoni explained. “The initial focus was ensuring that men get sequencing if they have metastatic prostate cancer, and that they get access to clinical trials. The really distinguishing factor about POPCaP is that it has built a vibrant community of clinicians, researchers and program offices. The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.” More POPCaP hubs are in development, she said.
• PATCH (Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice), a program funded by the VA and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. “The whole purpose of PATCH is to create this network of sites to systematically go through different clinical trials that are biomarker-driven,” Ramoni said. “One of the great things about PATCH is that it’s leveraging the genetics databases to help proactively identify men who might qualify for these trials and to find them wherever they might be across the system so they have access to these trials.” She also praised the program’s commitment to collaboration and mentorship. “If you’re new to putting together clinical trials concepts or to submitting merit proposals to VA for funding, PATCH is a great place to get into a community that’s supportive and wants to help you succeed.”
• The VA Phenomics Library. This library, based at the Boston VA Medical Center, focuses on improving the analysis of “messy” electronic health record data, Ramoni noted. “There are automated algorithms that go through and help you clean up that data to make sense of it,” she said. “The problem is that it’s really been an every-person-for-himself-or-herself system. Each researcher who needed these phenotypes was creating his or her own.” The Phenomics Library will promote sharing “so there’s not going to be as much wasted time duplicating effort,” she said. “By the end of fiscal year 2021, we will have over 1,000 curated phenotypes in there. We hope that will be a great resource for the oncology community as well as many other communities.”
• Access to Clinical Trials (ACT) for Veterans. “This program, which began a couple of years ago, has really succeeded,” Ramoni said. “We were focusing on decreasing the time it takes to start up multi-site industry trials. When we got started with ACT, it was taking over 200 days to get started. And now, just a couple years later, we are well under 100 days, which is within industry standards.” Also, she said, the VA established a Partnered Research Program office, “which serves to interact with our industry partners and really guide them through the VA system, which can be complex if you’re approaching it for the first time.”

In a separate presentation, Krissa Caroff, MS, CPC, program manager of the Partnered Research Program, said it had quickened the process of implementing clinical trials by tackling roadblocks such as the need for multiple master agreements to be signed. Central coordination has been key, she said, “and we are working closely to ensure that we when have a multisite trial, all the VA sites are utilizing the same single IRB [institutional review board]. We’ve also identified the critical information that we need to collect from industry in order for us to evaluate a trial.”

What’s next? “We really are going to be focusing on oncology trials,” Ramoni insisted. “This is a high priority for us.” She added: “Please share your feedback and experiences with us. And also please communicate amongst your colleagues within your organization to explain how we’re standardizing things within VA.”

The speakers reported no relevant disclosures.  

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is embracing clinical trials with a focus on oncology, and patients will benefit from new priorities and programs, VA officials reported at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) virtual meeting. “The whole model is one that is far more proactive,” said Carolyn Clancy, MD, Under Secretary for Health for Discovery, Education, and Affiliate Networks.

According to Clancy, the department’s top research priority is to increase veteran access to high-quality clinical trials. “Priority number 2 is increasing the real-world impact of VA research,” she said. “Our commitment to veterans and the taxpayers is to reverse and shorten the [research-to-implementation] timeline. And the third priority is to put VA data to work for veterans, not just through people who work in VA and Veterans Health Administration, but through other researchers who can have access to them.”

To meet these goals, VA is engaging in multiple research programs and collaborations. Rachel B. Ramoni, DMD, ScD, the VA chief research and development officer, highlighted a number of the projects in a separate AVAHO meeting presentation, including:

• The National Cancer Institute and VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE), an interagency collaboration between the VA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This program established a network of sites to help enrolled veterans take part in NCI-supported clinical trials. “It really got up and running in 2018, and I’m proud to say that over 250 veterans have been enrolled, and enrollment exceeds that at non-NAVIGATE sites,” Ramoni reported. “Clearly, the additional support that these sites are getting is really helping to achieve the outcome of getting more veterans access to these trials.” However, she said, some areas of the nation aren’t yet covered by the program.
• The Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP), established through a partnership with the Prostate Cancer Foundation. The foundation provided a $50 million investment. “This program ensures that veterans, no matter where they are, get best-in-class prostate cancer care,” Ramoni explained. “The initial focus was ensuring that men get sequencing if they have metastatic prostate cancer, and that they get access to clinical trials. The really distinguishing factor about POPCaP is that it has built a vibrant community of clinicians, researchers and program offices. The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.” More POPCaP hubs are in development, she said.
• PATCH (Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice), a program funded by the VA and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. “The whole purpose of PATCH is to create this network of sites to systematically go through different clinical trials that are biomarker-driven,” Ramoni said. “One of the great things about PATCH is that it’s leveraging the genetics databases to help proactively identify men who might qualify for these trials and to find them wherever they might be across the system so they have access to these trials.” She also praised the program’s commitment to collaboration and mentorship. “If you’re new to putting together clinical trials concepts or to submitting merit proposals to VA for funding, PATCH is a great place to get into a community that’s supportive and wants to help you succeed.”
• The VA Phenomics Library. This library, based at the Boston VA Medical Center, focuses on improving the analysis of “messy” electronic health record data, Ramoni noted. “There are automated algorithms that go through and help you clean up that data to make sense of it,” she said. “The problem is that it’s really been an every-person-for-himself-or-herself system. Each researcher who needed these phenotypes was creating his or her own.” The Phenomics Library will promote sharing “so there’s not going to be as much wasted time duplicating effort,” she said. “By the end of fiscal year 2021, we will have over 1,000 curated phenotypes in there. We hope that will be a great resource for the oncology community as well as many other communities.”
• Access to Clinical Trials (ACT) for Veterans. “This program, which began a couple of years ago, has really succeeded,” Ramoni said. “We were focusing on decreasing the time it takes to start up multi-site industry trials. When we got started with ACT, it was taking over 200 days to get started. And now, just a couple years later, we are well under 100 days, which is within industry standards.” Also, she said, the VA established a Partnered Research Program office, “which serves to interact with our industry partners and really guide them through the VA system, which can be complex if you’re approaching it for the first time.”

In a separate presentation, Krissa Caroff, MS, CPC, program manager of the Partnered Research Program, said it had quickened the process of implementing clinical trials by tackling roadblocks such as the need for multiple master agreements to be signed. Central coordination has been key, she said, “and we are working closely to ensure that we when have a multisite trial, all the VA sites are utilizing the same single IRB [institutional review board]. We’ve also identified the critical information that we need to collect from industry in order for us to evaluate a trial.”

What’s next? “We really are going to be focusing on oncology trials,” Ramoni insisted. “This is a high priority for us.” She added: “Please share your feedback and experiences with us. And also please communicate amongst your colleagues within your organization to explain how we’re standardizing things within VA.”

The speakers reported no relevant disclosures.  

Individualized 10-year and lifetime risks of cancer can now for the first time be estimated in patients with established cardiovascular disease, Cilie C. van ’t Klooster, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

©sripfoto/Thinkstock.com

She and her coinvestigators have developed an easy-to-use predictive model that generates individualized risk estimates for total cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer. The tool relies on nine readily available clinical variables: age, sex, smoking, weight, height, alcohol use, diabetes, antiplatelet drug use, and C-reactive protein level. The cancer risk calculator factors in an individual’s competing risk of death because of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The risk calculator was developed using data on 7,280 patients with established CVD enrolled in the ongoing long-term Dutch UCC-SMART (Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort – Second Manifestations of Arterial Disease) study, then independently validated in 9,322 patients in the double-blind CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes) trial, explained Dr. van ’t Klooster of Utrecht (the Netherlands) University.

Several other prediction models estimate the risk of a specific type of cancer, most commonly breast cancer or lung cancer. But the new Utrecht prediction tool is the first one to estimate total cancer risk. It’s also the first to apply specifically to patients with known CVD, thus filling an unmet need, because patients with established CVD are known to be on average at 19% increased risk of total cancer and 56% greater risk for lung cancer, compared with the general population. This is thought to be caused mainly by shared risk factors, including smoking, obesity, and low-grade systemic inflammation.

As the Utrecht/CANTOS analysis shows, however, that 19% increased relative risk for cancer in patients with CVD doesn’t tell the whole story. While the median lifetime and 10-year risks of total cancer in CANTOS were 26% and 10%, respectively, the individual patient risks for total cancer estimated using the Dutch prediction model ranged from 1% to 52% for lifetime and from 1% to 31% for 10-year risk. The same was true for lung cancer risk: median 5% lifetime and 2% 10-year risks, with individual patient risks ranging from 0% to 37% and from 0% to 24%. Likewise for colorectal cancer: a median 4% lifetime risk, ranging from 0% to 6%, and a median 2% risk over the next 10 years, with personalized risks ranging as high as 13% for lifetime risk and 6% for 10-year colorectal cancer risk.

The risk calculator performed “reasonably well,” according to Dr. van ’t Klooster. She pointed to a C-statistic of 0.74 for lung cancer, 0.63 for total cancer, and 0.64 for colorectal cancer. It’s possible the risk predictor’s performance could be further enhanced by incorporation of several potentially important factors that weren’t available in the UCC-SMART derivation cohort, including race, education level, and socioeconomic status, she added.

Potential applications for the risk calculator in clinical practice require further study, but include using the lifetime risk prediction for cancer as a motivational aid in conversations with patients about the importance of behavioral change in support of a healthier lifestyle. Also, a high predicted 10-year lung cancer risk could potentially be used to lower the threshold for a screening chest CT, resulting in earlier detection and treatment of lung cancer, Dr. van ’t Klooster noted.

In an interview, Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, praised the risk prediction study as rigorously executed, topical, and clinically significant.

“This paper signifies the overlap between our two disciplines of cancer and cardiovascular disease in terms of the risks that we face together when we care for this patient population,” said Dr. Ky, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Many of us in medicine believe in the importance of risk prediction: identifying who’s at high risk and doing everything we can to mitigate that risk. This paper speaks to that and moves us one step closer to accomplishing that aim,” added Dr. Ky, who is editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, which published the study simultaneously with Dr. van ’t Klooster’s presentation at ESC 2020. The paper provides direct access to the risk calculator.

Dr. van ’t Klooster reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. UCC-SMART is funded by a Utrecht University grant, and CANTOS was funded by Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: van ’t Klooster CC. ESC 2020 and JACC CardioOncol. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2020.07.001.

Individualized 10-year and lifetime risks of cancer can now for the first time be estimated in patients with established cardiovascular disease, Cilie C. van ’t Klooster, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

©sripfoto/Thinkstock.com

She and her coinvestigators have developed an easy-to-use predictive model that generates individualized risk estimates for total cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer. The tool relies on nine readily available clinical variables: age, sex, smoking, weight, height, alcohol use, diabetes, antiplatelet drug use, and C-reactive protein level. The cancer risk calculator factors in an individual’s competing risk of death because of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The risk calculator was developed using data on 7,280 patients with established CVD enrolled in the ongoing long-term Dutch UCC-SMART (Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort – Second Manifestations of Arterial Disease) study, then independently validated in 9,322 patients in the double-blind CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes) trial, explained Dr. van ’t Klooster of Utrecht (the Netherlands) University.

Several other prediction models estimate the risk of a specific type of cancer, most commonly breast cancer or lung cancer. But the new Utrecht prediction tool is the first one to estimate total cancer risk. It’s also the first to apply specifically to patients with known CVD, thus filling an unmet need, because patients with established CVD are known to be on average at 19% increased risk of total cancer and 56% greater risk for lung cancer, compared with the general population. This is thought to be caused mainly by shared risk factors, including smoking, obesity, and low-grade systemic inflammation.

As the Utrecht/CANTOS analysis shows, however, that 19% increased relative risk for cancer in patients with CVD doesn’t tell the whole story. While the median lifetime and 10-year risks of total cancer in CANTOS were 26% and 10%, respectively, the individual patient risks for total cancer estimated using the Dutch prediction model ranged from 1% to 52% for lifetime and from 1% to 31% for 10-year risk. The same was true for lung cancer risk: median 5% lifetime and 2% 10-year risks, with individual patient risks ranging from 0% to 37% and from 0% to 24%. Likewise for colorectal cancer: a median 4% lifetime risk, ranging from 0% to 6%, and a median 2% risk over the next 10 years, with personalized risks ranging as high as 13% for lifetime risk and 6% for 10-year colorectal cancer risk.

The risk calculator performed “reasonably well,” according to Dr. van ’t Klooster. She pointed to a C-statistic of 0.74 for lung cancer, 0.63 for total cancer, and 0.64 for colorectal cancer. It’s possible the risk predictor’s performance could be further enhanced by incorporation of several potentially important factors that weren’t available in the UCC-SMART derivation cohort, including race, education level, and socioeconomic status, she added.

Potential applications for the risk calculator in clinical practice require further study, but include using the lifetime risk prediction for cancer as a motivational aid in conversations with patients about the importance of behavioral change in support of a healthier lifestyle. Also, a high predicted 10-year lung cancer risk could potentially be used to lower the threshold for a screening chest CT, resulting in earlier detection and treatment of lung cancer, Dr. van ’t Klooster noted.

In an interview, Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, praised the risk prediction study as rigorously executed, topical, and clinically significant.

“This paper signifies the overlap between our two disciplines of cancer and cardiovascular disease in terms of the risks that we face together when we care for this patient population,” said Dr. Ky, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Many of us in medicine believe in the importance of risk prediction: identifying who’s at high risk and doing everything we can to mitigate that risk. This paper speaks to that and moves us one step closer to accomplishing that aim,” added Dr. Ky, who is editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, which published the study simultaneously with Dr. van ’t Klooster’s presentation at ESC 2020. The paper provides direct access to the risk calculator.

Dr. van ’t Klooster reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. UCC-SMART is funded by a Utrecht University grant, and CANTOS was funded by Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: van ’t Klooster CC. ESC 2020 and JACC CardioOncol. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2020.07.001.

Individualized 10-year and lifetime risks of cancer can now for the first time be estimated in patients with established cardiovascular disease, Cilie C. van ’t Klooster, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

©sripfoto/Thinkstock.com

She and her coinvestigators have developed an easy-to-use predictive model that generates individualized risk estimates for total cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer. The tool relies on nine readily available clinical variables: age, sex, smoking, weight, height, alcohol use, diabetes, antiplatelet drug use, and C-reactive protein level. The cancer risk calculator factors in an individual’s competing risk of death because of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The risk calculator was developed using data on 7,280 patients with established CVD enrolled in the ongoing long-term Dutch UCC-SMART (Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort – Second Manifestations of Arterial Disease) study, then independently validated in 9,322 patients in the double-blind CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes) trial, explained Dr. van ’t Klooster of Utrecht (the Netherlands) University.

Several other prediction models estimate the risk of a specific type of cancer, most commonly breast cancer or lung cancer. But the new Utrecht prediction tool is the first one to estimate total cancer risk. It’s also the first to apply specifically to patients with known CVD, thus filling an unmet need, because patients with established CVD are known to be on average at 19% increased risk of total cancer and 56% greater risk for lung cancer, compared with the general population. This is thought to be caused mainly by shared risk factors, including smoking, obesity, and low-grade systemic inflammation.

As the Utrecht/CANTOS analysis shows, however, that 19% increased relative risk for cancer in patients with CVD doesn’t tell the whole story. While the median lifetime and 10-year risks of total cancer in CANTOS were 26% and 10%, respectively, the individual patient risks for total cancer estimated using the Dutch prediction model ranged from 1% to 52% for lifetime and from 1% to 31% for 10-year risk. The same was true for lung cancer risk: median 5% lifetime and 2% 10-year risks, with individual patient risks ranging from 0% to 37% and from 0% to 24%. Likewise for colorectal cancer: a median 4% lifetime risk, ranging from 0% to 6%, and a median 2% risk over the next 10 years, with personalized risks ranging as high as 13% for lifetime risk and 6% for 10-year colorectal cancer risk.

The risk calculator performed “reasonably well,” according to Dr. van ’t Klooster. She pointed to a C-statistic of 0.74 for lung cancer, 0.63 for total cancer, and 0.64 for colorectal cancer. It’s possible the risk predictor’s performance could be further enhanced by incorporation of several potentially important factors that weren’t available in the UCC-SMART derivation cohort, including race, education level, and socioeconomic status, she added.

Potential applications for the risk calculator in clinical practice require further study, but include using the lifetime risk prediction for cancer as a motivational aid in conversations with patients about the importance of behavioral change in support of a healthier lifestyle. Also, a high predicted 10-year lung cancer risk could potentially be used to lower the threshold for a screening chest CT, resulting in earlier detection and treatment of lung cancer, Dr. van ’t Klooster noted.

In an interview, Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, praised the risk prediction study as rigorously executed, topical, and clinically significant.

“This paper signifies the overlap between our two disciplines of cancer and cardiovascular disease in terms of the risks that we face together when we care for this patient population,” said Dr. Ky, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Many of us in medicine believe in the importance of risk prediction: identifying who’s at high risk and doing everything we can to mitigate that risk. This paper speaks to that and moves us one step closer to accomplishing that aim,” added Dr. Ky, who is editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, which published the study simultaneously with Dr. van ’t Klooster’s presentation at ESC 2020. The paper provides direct access to the risk calculator.

Dr. van ’t Klooster reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. UCC-SMART is funded by a Utrecht University grant, and CANTOS was funded by Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: van ’t Klooster CC. ESC 2020 and JACC CardioOncol. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2020.07.001.

Responses from physicians in eight countries show profound effects from COVID-19 on their personal and professional lives, according to the results of a Medscape survey.

More than 7,500 physicians – nearly 5,000 in the United States, and others in Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom – responded to questions about their struggles to save patients and how the pandemic has changed their income and their lives at home and at work.

The pain was evident in this response from an emergency medicine physician in Spain: “It has been the worst time in my life ever, in both my personal and professional life.”

Conversely, some reported positive effects.

An internist in Brazil wrote: “I feel more proud of my career than ever before.”
 

One quarter of U.S. physicians considering earlier retirement

Physicians in the United States were asked what career changes, if any, they were considering in light of their experience with COVID-19. Although a little more than half (51%) said they were not planning any changes, 25% answered, “retiring earlier than previously planned,” and 12% answered, “a career change away from medicine.”

The number of physicians reporting an income drop was highest in Brazil (63% reported a drop), followed by the United States (62%), Mexico (56%), Portugal (49%), Germany (42%), France (41%), and Spain (31%). The question was not asked in the United Kingdom survey.

In the United States, the size of the drop has been substantial: 9% lost 76%-100% of their income; 14% lost 51%-75%; 28% lost 26%-50%; 33% lost 11%-25%; and 15% lost 1%-10%.

The U.S. specialists with the largest drop in income were ophthalmologists, who lost 51%, followed by allergists (46%), plastic surgeons (46%), and otolaryngologists (45%).

“I’m looking for a new profession due to economic impact,” an otolaryngologist in the United States said. “We are at risk while essentially using our private savings to keep our practice solvent.”

More than half of U.S. physicians (54%) have personally treated patients with COVID-19. Percentages were higher in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (percentages ranged from 60%-68%).

The United States led all eight countries in treating patients with COVID-19 via telemedicine, at 26%. Germany had the lowest telemedicine percentage, at 10%.
 

Burnout intensifies

About two thirds of US physicians (64%) said that burnout had intensified during the crisis (70% of female physicians and 61% of male physicians said it had).

Many factors are feeding the burnout.

A critical care physician in the United States responded, “It is terrible to see people arriving at their rooms and assuming they were going to die soon; to see people saying goodbye to their families before dying or before being intubated.”

In all eight countries, a substantial percentage of physicians reported they “sometimes, often or always” treated patients with COVID-19 without the proper personal protective equipment. Spain had by far the largest percentage who answered that way (67%), followed by France (45%), Mexico (40%), the United Kingdom (34%), Brazil and Germany (28% each); and the United States and Portugal (23% each).

A U.S. rheumatologist wrote: “The fact that we were sent to take care of infectious patients without proper protection equipment made me feel we were betrayed in this fight.”

Sense of duty to volunteer to treat COVID-19 patients varied substantially among countries, from 69% who felt that way in Spain to 40% in Brazil. Half (50%) in the United States felt that way.

“Altruism must take second place where a real and present threat exists to my own personal existence,” one U.S. internist wrote.
 

Numbers personally infected

One fifth of physicians in Spain and the United Kingdom had personally been infected with the virus. Brazil, France, and Mexico had the next highest numbers, with 13%-15% of physicians infected; 5%-6% in the United States, Germany, and Portugal said they had been infected.

The percentage of physicians who reported that immediate family members had been infected ranged from 25% in Spain to 6% in Portugal. Among US physicians, 9% reported that family members had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In the United States, 44% of respondents who had family living with them at home during the pandemic reported that relationships at home were more stressed because of stay-at-home guidelines and social distancing. Almost half (47%) said there had been no change, and 9% said relationships were less stressed.
 

Eating is coping mechanism of choice

Physicians were asked what they were doing more of during the pandemic, and food seemed to be the top source of comfort in all eight countries.

Loneliness reports differ across globe

Portugal had the highest percentage (51%) of physicians reporting increased loneliness. Next were Brazil (48%), the United States (46%), the United Kingdom (42%), France (41%), Spain and Mexico (40% each), and Germany (32%).

All eight countries lacked workplace activities to help physicians with grief. More than half (55%) of U.K. physicians reported having such activities available at their workplace, whereas only 25% of physicians in Germany did; 12%-24% of respondents across the countries were unsure about the offerings.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Responses from physicians in eight countries show profound effects from COVID-19 on their personal and professional lives, according to the results of a Medscape survey.

More than 7,500 physicians – nearly 5,000 in the United States, and others in Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom – responded to questions about their struggles to save patients and how the pandemic has changed their income and their lives at home and at work.

The pain was evident in this response from an emergency medicine physician in Spain: “It has been the worst time in my life ever, in both my personal and professional life.”

Conversely, some reported positive effects.

An internist in Brazil wrote: “I feel more proud of my career than ever before.”
 

One quarter of U.S. physicians considering earlier retirement

Physicians in the United States were asked what career changes, if any, they were considering in light of their experience with COVID-19. Although a little more than half (51%) said they were not planning any changes, 25% answered, “retiring earlier than previously planned,” and 12% answered, “a career change away from medicine.”

The number of physicians reporting an income drop was highest in Brazil (63% reported a drop), followed by the United States (62%), Mexico (56%), Portugal (49%), Germany (42%), France (41%), and Spain (31%). The question was not asked in the United Kingdom survey.

In the United States, the size of the drop has been substantial: 9% lost 76%-100% of their income; 14% lost 51%-75%; 28% lost 26%-50%; 33% lost 11%-25%; and 15% lost 1%-10%.

The U.S. specialists with the largest drop in income were ophthalmologists, who lost 51%, followed by allergists (46%), plastic surgeons (46%), and otolaryngologists (45%).

“I’m looking for a new profession due to economic impact,” an otolaryngologist in the United States said. “We are at risk while essentially using our private savings to keep our practice solvent.”

More than half of U.S. physicians (54%) have personally treated patients with COVID-19. Percentages were higher in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (percentages ranged from 60%-68%).

The United States led all eight countries in treating patients with COVID-19 via telemedicine, at 26%. Germany had the lowest telemedicine percentage, at 10%.
 

Burnout intensifies

About two thirds of US physicians (64%) said that burnout had intensified during the crisis (70% of female physicians and 61% of male physicians said it had).

Many factors are feeding the burnout.

A critical care physician in the United States responded, “It is terrible to see people arriving at their rooms and assuming they were going to die soon; to see people saying goodbye to their families before dying or before being intubated.”

In all eight countries, a substantial percentage of physicians reported they “sometimes, often or always” treated patients with COVID-19 without the proper personal protective equipment. Spain had by far the largest percentage who answered that way (67%), followed by France (45%), Mexico (40%), the United Kingdom (34%), Brazil and Germany (28% each); and the United States and Portugal (23% each).

A U.S. rheumatologist wrote: “The fact that we were sent to take care of infectious patients without proper protection equipment made me feel we were betrayed in this fight.”

Sense of duty to volunteer to treat COVID-19 patients varied substantially among countries, from 69% who felt that way in Spain to 40% in Brazil. Half (50%) in the United States felt that way.

“Altruism must take second place where a real and present threat exists to my own personal existence,” one U.S. internist wrote.
 

Numbers personally infected

One fifth of physicians in Spain and the United Kingdom had personally been infected with the virus. Brazil, France, and Mexico had the next highest numbers, with 13%-15% of physicians infected; 5%-6% in the United States, Germany, and Portugal said they had been infected.

The percentage of physicians who reported that immediate family members had been infected ranged from 25% in Spain to 6% in Portugal. Among US physicians, 9% reported that family members had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In the United States, 44% of respondents who had family living with them at home during the pandemic reported that relationships at home were more stressed because of stay-at-home guidelines and social distancing. Almost half (47%) said there had been no change, and 9% said relationships were less stressed.
 

Eating is coping mechanism of choice

Physicians were asked what they were doing more of during the pandemic, and food seemed to be the top source of comfort in all eight countries.

Loneliness reports differ across globe

Portugal had the highest percentage (51%) of physicians reporting increased loneliness. Next were Brazil (48%), the United States (46%), the United Kingdom (42%), France (41%), Spain and Mexico (40% each), and Germany (32%).

All eight countries lacked workplace activities to help physicians with grief. More than half (55%) of U.K. physicians reported having such activities available at their workplace, whereas only 25% of physicians in Germany did; 12%-24% of respondents across the countries were unsure about the offerings.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Responses from physicians in eight countries show profound effects from COVID-19 on their personal and professional lives, according to the results of a Medscape survey.

More than 7,500 physicians – nearly 5,000 in the United States, and others in Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom – responded to questions about their struggles to save patients and how the pandemic has changed their income and their lives at home and at work.

The pain was evident in this response from an emergency medicine physician in Spain: “It has been the worst time in my life ever, in both my personal and professional life.”

Conversely, some reported positive effects.

An internist in Brazil wrote: “I feel more proud of my career than ever before.”
 

One quarter of U.S. physicians considering earlier retirement

Physicians in the United States were asked what career changes, if any, they were considering in light of their experience with COVID-19. Although a little more than half (51%) said they were not planning any changes, 25% answered, “retiring earlier than previously planned,” and 12% answered, “a career change away from medicine.”

The number of physicians reporting an income drop was highest in Brazil (63% reported a drop), followed by the United States (62%), Mexico (56%), Portugal (49%), Germany (42%), France (41%), and Spain (31%). The question was not asked in the United Kingdom survey.

In the United States, the size of the drop has been substantial: 9% lost 76%-100% of their income; 14% lost 51%-75%; 28% lost 26%-50%; 33% lost 11%-25%; and 15% lost 1%-10%.

The U.S. specialists with the largest drop in income were ophthalmologists, who lost 51%, followed by allergists (46%), plastic surgeons (46%), and otolaryngologists (45%).

“I’m looking for a new profession due to economic impact,” an otolaryngologist in the United States said. “We are at risk while essentially using our private savings to keep our practice solvent.”

More than half of U.S. physicians (54%) have personally treated patients with COVID-19. Percentages were higher in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (percentages ranged from 60%-68%).

The United States led all eight countries in treating patients with COVID-19 via telemedicine, at 26%. Germany had the lowest telemedicine percentage, at 10%.
 

Burnout intensifies

About two thirds of US physicians (64%) said that burnout had intensified during the crisis (70% of female physicians and 61% of male physicians said it had).

Many factors are feeding the burnout.

A critical care physician in the United States responded, “It is terrible to see people arriving at their rooms and assuming they were going to die soon; to see people saying goodbye to their families before dying or before being intubated.”

In all eight countries, a substantial percentage of physicians reported they “sometimes, often or always” treated patients with COVID-19 without the proper personal protective equipment. Spain had by far the largest percentage who answered that way (67%), followed by France (45%), Mexico (40%), the United Kingdom (34%), Brazil and Germany (28% each); and the United States and Portugal (23% each).

A U.S. rheumatologist wrote: “The fact that we were sent to take care of infectious patients without proper protection equipment made me feel we were betrayed in this fight.”

Sense of duty to volunteer to treat COVID-19 patients varied substantially among countries, from 69% who felt that way in Spain to 40% in Brazil. Half (50%) in the United States felt that way.

“Altruism must take second place where a real and present threat exists to my own personal existence,” one U.S. internist wrote.
 

Numbers personally infected

One fifth of physicians in Spain and the United Kingdom had personally been infected with the virus. Brazil, France, and Mexico had the next highest numbers, with 13%-15% of physicians infected; 5%-6% in the United States, Germany, and Portugal said they had been infected.

The percentage of physicians who reported that immediate family members had been infected ranged from 25% in Spain to 6% in Portugal. Among US physicians, 9% reported that family members had been diagnosed with COVID-19.

In the United States, 44% of respondents who had family living with them at home during the pandemic reported that relationships at home were more stressed because of stay-at-home guidelines and social distancing. Almost half (47%) said there had been no change, and 9% said relationships were less stressed.
 

Eating is coping mechanism of choice

Physicians were asked what they were doing more of during the pandemic, and food seemed to be the top source of comfort in all eight countries.

Loneliness reports differ across globe

Portugal had the highest percentage (51%) of physicians reporting increased loneliness. Next were Brazil (48%), the United States (46%), the United Kingdom (42%), France (41%), Spain and Mexico (40% each), and Germany (32%).

All eight countries lacked workplace activities to help physicians with grief. More than half (55%) of U.K. physicians reported having such activities available at their workplace, whereas only 25% of physicians in Germany did; 12%-24% of respondents across the countries were unsure about the offerings.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The long-awaited postmarketing studies of the abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) of OxyContin (Perdue Pharma) received mixed reviews from a Food and Drug Administration joint advisory committee.

After a 2-day discussion of new research submitted by Perdue, as well as other relevant published data, most members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management and Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products advisory committees came to the conclusion that the reformulated drug “meaningfully” reduced abuse via intranasal administration and intravenous injection, but not overall opioid abuse or overdose.

The reformulated OxyContin “was the first out of the gate,” and “has the greatest market penetration of any ADF” so “it gives us the greatest opportunity to measure change before and after reformulation,” said committee member Traci C. Green, PhD, MSc, professor and director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

The FDA approved the original formulation of OxyContin (oxycodone hydrochloride), a mu-receptor opioid agonist, in December 1995 for the management of pain requiring daily round-the-clock opioid treatment in cases where other treatments were inadequate. It approved an ADF version of the product in April 2010.

The updated formulation incorporates polyethylene oxide, an inactive polymer that makes the tablet harder and more crush resistant. The tablet turns into a gel or glue-like substance when wet.

The new formulation is bioequivalent to the original formulation, so no additional clinical efficacy and safety studies were conducted.

At the request of the FDA, the company carried out four postmarketing studies, which the FDA also reviewed.

• A National Addictions Vigilance Intervention and Prevention Program study that included 66,897 assessments in patients undergoing evaluation for substance use or entering an opioid addiction program. Results showed a drop in up to 52% of self-reported past 30-day OxyContin injection and snorting versus comparators, including extended-release morphine and immediate-release hydrocodone.
• An analysis of 308,465 calls to U.S. poison centers showing a reduction of up to 28% for calls regarding intentional OxyContin-related exposures immediately following the drug’s reformulation. However, the FDA analysis concluded it is unclear whether the decline was attributable to the drug’s reformulation or co-occurring trends.
• A study of 63,528 individuals entering methadone clinics or treatment programs that showed a reduction of up to 27% in OxyContin abuse versus comparators. There was no information on route of abuse. Here, the FDA analysis determined the results were mixed and didn’t provide compelling evidence.
• A claims-based analysis of patients who were dispensed an opioid (297,836 OxyContin; 659,673 a comparator) that showed no evidence that the updated product affected the rate of fatal and nonfatal opioid overdoses.

During the meeting, committee members heard that opioid use in the United States peaked in 2012, with 260 million prescriptions dispensed, then declined by 41% by 2019. ADFs accounted for only 2% of prescriptions in 2019. They also heard that results of a wide variety of studies and surveys support the conclusion that misuse, abuse, and diversion of OxyContin decreased after it was reformulated.

Ultimately, the joint committee voted 20 to 7 (with 1 abstention) that the reformulated drug reduced nonoral abuse. Most members who voted in favor cited the NAVIPPRO study as a reason for their decision, but few found the strength of the evidence better than moderate.

Meeting chair Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted the reduction in abuse may, in part, be a result of the overall reduction in opioid use.

Jon E. Zibbell, PhD, senior public health scientist, behavioral health research division, RTI International, Atlanta, who voted “no,” was disappointed there was not more data.

“We had a bunch of years for this and so many of us could have done some amazing studies” related to how abuse changed post reformulation, he said.

As for overall abuse deterrence, the committee believed the evidence was less compelling. Only two members voted that the reformulated version of the drug reduced overall abuse and only one member voted that the reformulated tablets reduced opioid overdose.

Members generally agreed that all of the studies had limitations, including retrospective designs, confounding, and potential misclassifications. Many noted the challenge of assessing abuse pre- and post reformulation given the evolving situation.

For instance, at the time the reformulated drug was launched, public health initiatives targeting opioid abuse were introduced, more treatment centers were opening, and there was a crackdown on “pill-mill” doctors.

In addition, prescribing and consumption habits were changing. Some doctors may have switched only “at-risk” patients to the reformulated opioid and there may have been “self-selection” among patients – with some potentially opting for another drug such as immediate-release oxycodone.

During the meeting, there was discussion about how to interpret a “meaningful” abuse reduction. However, there was no consensus of a percentage the reduction had to reach in order to be deemed meaningful.

Another issue discussed was the term “abuse deterrent,” which some members believed was stigmatizing and should be changed to crush resistant.

There was also concern that prescribers might consider the ADF a “safe” or less addictive opioid. Michael Sprintz, DO, clinical assistant professor, division of geriatric and palliative medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said ADFs might provide physicians with “a false sense of security.”

Dr. Sprintz, also founder of the Sprintz Center for Pain and Recovery, noted the importance of pain medicine physicians understanding addiction and addiction specialists understanding pain management.

Other committee members voiced concern that the reformulation results in patients switching from intravenous and intranasal abuse to oral abuse. Committed abusers can still swallow multiple pills.

Some members noted that reformulated OxyContin coincided with increased transition to heroin, which is relatively cheap and readily available. However, they recognized that proving causality is difficult.

The committee was reminded that the reformulated drug provides a significant barrier against, but doesn’t altogether eliminate, opioid abuse. With hot water and the right tools, the tablets can still be manipulated.

In addition, the reformulated drug will not solve the U.S. opioid epidemic, which requires a multifaceted approach. The opioid crisis, said Wilson Compton, MD, deputy director at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has resulted in a “skyrocketing” of deaths linked to “tremendously potent” forms of fentanyl, emerging stimulant use issues, and the possible increase in drug overdoses linked to COVID-19.

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

The long-awaited postmarketing studies of the abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) of OxyContin (Perdue Pharma) received mixed reviews from a Food and Drug Administration joint advisory committee.

After a 2-day discussion of new research submitted by Perdue, as well as other relevant published data, most members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management and Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products advisory committees came to the conclusion that the reformulated drug “meaningfully” reduced abuse via intranasal administration and intravenous injection, but not overall opioid abuse or overdose.

The reformulated OxyContin “was the first out of the gate,” and “has the greatest market penetration of any ADF” so “it gives us the greatest opportunity to measure change before and after reformulation,” said committee member Traci C. Green, PhD, MSc, professor and director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

The FDA approved the original formulation of OxyContin (oxycodone hydrochloride), a mu-receptor opioid agonist, in December 1995 for the management of pain requiring daily round-the-clock opioid treatment in cases where other treatments were inadequate. It approved an ADF version of the product in April 2010.

The updated formulation incorporates polyethylene oxide, an inactive polymer that makes the tablet harder and more crush resistant. The tablet turns into a gel or glue-like substance when wet.

The new formulation is bioequivalent to the original formulation, so no additional clinical efficacy and safety studies were conducted.

At the request of the FDA, the company carried out four postmarketing studies, which the FDA also reviewed.