Federal Practitioner

While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.

In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.

Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.

As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
 

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.

Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.

In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.

Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.

There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
 

Pathophysiology

The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.

“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”

The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
 

Management considerations

Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.

Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.

They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
 

Research priorities

A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.

“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.

They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.

Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
 

Community of learners

As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.

Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.

Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.

Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.

While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.

In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.

Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.

As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
 

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.

Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.

In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.

Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.

There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
 

Pathophysiology

The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.

“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”

The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
 

Management considerations

Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.

Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.

They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
 

Research priorities

A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.

“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.

They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.

Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
 

Community of learners

As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.

Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.

Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.

Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.

While SARS-CoV-2 causes frequent and potentially severe pulmonary disease, extrapulmonary manifestations may be a prominent part of the clinical spectrum, according to a review published in Nature Medicine.

In this comprehensive literature review, Aakriti Gupta, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and colleagues detailed the epidemiologic and clinical multisystem effects of COVID-19. The authors explained what is known and/or suspected about the pathophysiology of those effects and outlined the resultant management considerations.

Key mechanisms for multiorgan injury include direct viral toxicity, endothelial cell damage with inflammatory mediation of thrombosis, aberrant immune response, and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

The relative importance of each pathway in the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and the mechanism for extrapulmonary spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection are imperfectly understood, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted.

As for the hematologic effects of COVID-19, patients may present with several laboratory abnormalities, but the most clinically relevant complications are thromboembolic.
 

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC) is accompanied by elevated levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen, with minor abnormalities in prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts in the initial stage of infection.

Elevated D-dimer levels have been reported in up to 46% of hospitalized patients, and a longitudinal increase while hospitalized is associated with higher mortality.

In initial reports from China and the Netherlands, thrombotic complications were seen in up to 30% of COVID-19 patients in ICUs. Thromboembolic events have been reported in 17%-22% of critically ill COVID-19 patients in studies from Italy and France.

Globally, in severely affected COVID-19 patients, there have been reports of thromboses in intravenous catheters and extracorporeal circuits as well as arterial vascular occlusive events, including myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, and stroke.

There have been multiple small studies in which critically ill COVID-19 patients were routinely screened for thrombotic disease. In these studies, rates of thrombotic complications ranged from 69% to 85%, despite thromboprophylaxis. Variability in prophylactic and screening protocols explain discrepancies in event rates.
 

Pathophysiology

The abnormally high blood levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection are reflective of excessive inflammation rather than overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which may develop in later stages of illness, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues. The authors theorized that uninhibited inflammation, along with hypoxia and direct viral-mediated cellular injury, contribute to thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients.

“The increased expression of ACE2 in endothelial cells after infection with SARS-CoV-2 may perpetuate a vicious cycle of endothelialitis that promotes thromboinflammation,” the authors wrote. “Collectively, hemostatic and inflammatory changes, which reflect endothelial damage and activation as well as critical illness, constitute a prothrombotic milieu.”

The authors noted that small autopsy series have shown high rates of microvascular and macrovascular thromboses, particularly in the pulmonary circulation, in COVID-19 patients.
 

Management considerations

Dr. Gupta and colleagues referenced interim guidelines from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that recommend serial complete blood counts, with white blood cell differential and assessment of D-dimer, prothrombin time, and fibrinogen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The authors also cited guidelines published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that recommend routine risk assessment for venous thromboembolism in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the consideration of standard-dose pharmaco-prophylaxis in patients who lack absolute contraindications.

Empiric use of higher-than-routine prophylactic-dose or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in ICU patients in the absence of proven thromboses has been implemented in some institutions, Dr. Gupta and colleagues noted. Parenteral anticoagulants (such as low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin) are preferred to oral anticoagulants because of short half-life, available reversal agents, and the potential for drug interactions between oral agents and antiviral and/or antibacterial treatment, according to the authors.

They wrote that randomized clinical trials “will be crucial to establishing effective and safe strategies” for anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. To this point, few randomized trials have been published to guide management of COVID-19–associated extrapulmonary manifestations, including CAC.
 

Research priorities

A more complete understanding of the organ-specific pathophysiology of this multisystem disease is vital, according to Dr. Gupta and colleagues.

“Regional, national, and international collaborations of clinicians and scientists focused on high-quality, transparent, ethical, and evidence-based research practices would help propel the global community toward achieving success against this pandemic,” the authors wrote.

They noted that common definitions and data standards for research are key for cross-institutional and international collaborations.

Initial attention to high-quality prospective scientific documentation standards would have been valuable and will be required for dedicated trials to address the multisystem effects of COVID-19.
 

Community of learners

As much as at any prior time in their careers, during the COVID-19 pandemic, health care providers have been enveloped in a community of learners – a group of people who share values and beliefs and who actively engage in learning from one another.

Through a patchwork of sources – news media, social media, traditional medical journals, general and COVID-focused meetings, and, most importantly, patients – we have been living in a learning-centered environment. Academicians, clinicians, practicing physicians, researchers, patients, family members, and caregivers have been actively and intentionally building a knowledge base together.

Through their published review, Dr. Gupta and colleagues have contributed meaningfully to the understanding our learning community has of the various extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The authors have provided a nice template for further research and clinical advances.

Dr. Gupta and colleagues disclosed financial relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gupta A et al. Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1017-32.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and for heart failure, are associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), according to a new large database analysis.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

The findings, which include data on the use of three different SGLT2 inhibitors in Canada and the United Kingdom and suggest a class effect, were published online July 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine by Antonios Douros, MD, PhD, of McGill University and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, and colleagues.

“Our results provide robust evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk for DKA. Of note, increased risks were observed in all molecule-specific analyses, with canagliflozin [Invokana, Janssen] showing the highest effect estimate,” they noted.

And because the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease will probably increase their uptake in the coming years, “Physicians should be aware of DKA as a potential adverse effect,” Dr. Douros and colleagues wrote.
 

Analysis “generally confirms what has already been published”

Asked for comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said that the study “generally confirms what has already been published” on the topic. He noted that overall “the risk of SGLT2 inhibitor–induced ketoacidosis is quite low in type 2 diabetes, perhaps on the order of 1 episode per 1000 patient-years.”

However, Dr. Taylor cautioned: “Published evidence suggests that the risk of DKA is increased if patients are unable to eat,” such as when hospitalized patients are not permitted to eat.

“In that setting, it is probably prudent to discontinue an SGLT2 inhibitor. Also, it may be prudent not to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with a history of DKA,” he added.

Dr. Taylor also advised: “Although not necessarily supported by this publication, I think that caution should be exercised in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients. ... Some late-stage type 2 diabetes patients may have severe insulin deficiency, and their physiology may resemble that of a type 1 diabetes patient.”

Dr. Taylor has previously advised against using SGLT2 inhibitors altogether in patients with type 1 diabetes.
 

Increased DKA risk seen across all SGLT2 inhibitors

The study involved electronic health care databases from seven Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom, from which 208,757 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were propensity-matched 1:1 to new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor users.

Of those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, 42.3% took canagliflozin, 30.7% dapagliflozin (Farxiga/Forxiga, AstraZeneca), and 27.0% empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim).

Over a mean 0.9-year follow-up, 521 patients were hospitalized with DKA, for an overall incidence rate of 1.41 per 1,000 person-years.

The rate with SGLT2 inhibitors, 2.03 per 1,000 person-years, was nearly three times that seen with DPP-4 inhibitors, at 0.75 per 1,000 person-years, a significant difference (hazard ratio, 2.85).

By individual SGLT2 inhibitor, the hazard ratios compared with DPP-4 inhibitors were 1.86 for dapagliflozin, 2.52 for empagliflozin, and 3.58 for canagliflozin, all statistically significant. Stratification by age, sex, and incident versus prevalent user did not change the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and DKA.

Asked about the higher rate for canagliflozin, Dr. Taylor commented: “It is hard to know whether there are real and reproducible differences in the risks of DKA among the various SGLT2 inhibitors. The differences are not huge and the populations are not well matched.”

But, he noted, “If canagliflozin triggers more glucosuria, it is not surprising that it would also induce more ketosis and possibly ketoacidosis.”

He also noted that the threefold relative increase in DKA with canagliflozin versus comparators is consistent with Janssen’s data, published in 2015. 

“It is, of course, reassuring that both [randomized clinical trials] and epidemiology produce similar estimates of the risk of drug-induced adverse events. Interestingly, the incidence of DKA is approximately threefold higher in the Canadian [data] as compared to Janssen’s clinical trials.”

Dr. Taylor also pointed out that, in the Janssen studies, the risk of canagliflozin-induced DKA appeared to be higher among patients with anti-islet antibodies, which suggests that some may have actually had autoimmune (type 1) diabetes. “So the overall risk of SGLT2 inhibitor-induced DKA may depend at least in part on the mix of patients.”

In the current study, individuals who never used insulin had a greater relative increase in risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, than did those who did use insulin (hazard ratios, 3.96 vs. 2.24, both compared with DPP-4 inhibitors). However, just among those taking SGLT2 inhibitors, the absolute risk for DKA was higher for those with prior insulin use (3.52 vs. 1.43 per 1,000 person-years). 

The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by ICES. Dr. Douros has reported receiving a salary support award from Fonds de recherche du Quebec – sante. Dr. Taylor was previously employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He is currently a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and has reported receiving research support provided to the University of Maryland School of Medicine by Regeneron.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and for heart failure, are associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), according to a new large database analysis.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

The findings, which include data on the use of three different SGLT2 inhibitors in Canada and the United Kingdom and suggest a class effect, were published online July 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine by Antonios Douros, MD, PhD, of McGill University and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, and colleagues.

“Our results provide robust evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk for DKA. Of note, increased risks were observed in all molecule-specific analyses, with canagliflozin [Invokana, Janssen] showing the highest effect estimate,” they noted.

And because the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease will probably increase their uptake in the coming years, “Physicians should be aware of DKA as a potential adverse effect,” Dr. Douros and colleagues wrote.
 

Analysis “generally confirms what has already been published”

Asked for comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said that the study “generally confirms what has already been published” on the topic. He noted that overall “the risk of SGLT2 inhibitor–induced ketoacidosis is quite low in type 2 diabetes, perhaps on the order of 1 episode per 1000 patient-years.”

However, Dr. Taylor cautioned: “Published evidence suggests that the risk of DKA is increased if patients are unable to eat,” such as when hospitalized patients are not permitted to eat.

“In that setting, it is probably prudent to discontinue an SGLT2 inhibitor. Also, it may be prudent not to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with a history of DKA,” he added.

Dr. Taylor also advised: “Although not necessarily supported by this publication, I think that caution should be exercised in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients. ... Some late-stage type 2 diabetes patients may have severe insulin deficiency, and their physiology may resemble that of a type 1 diabetes patient.”

Dr. Taylor has previously advised against using SGLT2 inhibitors altogether in patients with type 1 diabetes.
 

Increased DKA risk seen across all SGLT2 inhibitors

The study involved electronic health care databases from seven Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom, from which 208,757 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were propensity-matched 1:1 to new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor users.

Of those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, 42.3% took canagliflozin, 30.7% dapagliflozin (Farxiga/Forxiga, AstraZeneca), and 27.0% empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim).

Over a mean 0.9-year follow-up, 521 patients were hospitalized with DKA, for an overall incidence rate of 1.41 per 1,000 person-years.

The rate with SGLT2 inhibitors, 2.03 per 1,000 person-years, was nearly three times that seen with DPP-4 inhibitors, at 0.75 per 1,000 person-years, a significant difference (hazard ratio, 2.85).

By individual SGLT2 inhibitor, the hazard ratios compared with DPP-4 inhibitors were 1.86 for dapagliflozin, 2.52 for empagliflozin, and 3.58 for canagliflozin, all statistically significant. Stratification by age, sex, and incident versus prevalent user did not change the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and DKA.

Asked about the higher rate for canagliflozin, Dr. Taylor commented: “It is hard to know whether there are real and reproducible differences in the risks of DKA among the various SGLT2 inhibitors. The differences are not huge and the populations are not well matched.”

But, he noted, “If canagliflozin triggers more glucosuria, it is not surprising that it would also induce more ketosis and possibly ketoacidosis.”

He also noted that the threefold relative increase in DKA with canagliflozin versus comparators is consistent with Janssen’s data, published in 2015. 

“It is, of course, reassuring that both [randomized clinical trials] and epidemiology produce similar estimates of the risk of drug-induced adverse events. Interestingly, the incidence of DKA is approximately threefold higher in the Canadian [data] as compared to Janssen’s clinical trials.”

Dr. Taylor also pointed out that, in the Janssen studies, the risk of canagliflozin-induced DKA appeared to be higher among patients with anti-islet antibodies, which suggests that some may have actually had autoimmune (type 1) diabetes. “So the overall risk of SGLT2 inhibitor-induced DKA may depend at least in part on the mix of patients.”

In the current study, individuals who never used insulin had a greater relative increase in risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, than did those who did use insulin (hazard ratios, 3.96 vs. 2.24, both compared with DPP-4 inhibitors). However, just among those taking SGLT2 inhibitors, the absolute risk for DKA was higher for those with prior insulin use (3.52 vs. 1.43 per 1,000 person-years). 

The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by ICES. Dr. Douros has reported receiving a salary support award from Fonds de recherche du Quebec – sante. Dr. Taylor was previously employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He is currently a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and has reported receiving research support provided to the University of Maryland School of Medicine by Regeneron.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and for heart failure, are associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), according to a new large database analysis.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

The findings, which include data on the use of three different SGLT2 inhibitors in Canada and the United Kingdom and suggest a class effect, were published online July 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine by Antonios Douros, MD, PhD, of McGill University and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, and colleagues.

“Our results provide robust evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk for DKA. Of note, increased risks were observed in all molecule-specific analyses, with canagliflozin [Invokana, Janssen] showing the highest effect estimate,” they noted.

And because the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease will probably increase their uptake in the coming years, “Physicians should be aware of DKA as a potential adverse effect,” Dr. Douros and colleagues wrote.
 

Analysis “generally confirms what has already been published”

Asked for comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said that the study “generally confirms what has already been published” on the topic. He noted that overall “the risk of SGLT2 inhibitor–induced ketoacidosis is quite low in type 2 diabetes, perhaps on the order of 1 episode per 1000 patient-years.”

However, Dr. Taylor cautioned: “Published evidence suggests that the risk of DKA is increased if patients are unable to eat,” such as when hospitalized patients are not permitted to eat.

“In that setting, it is probably prudent to discontinue an SGLT2 inhibitor. Also, it may be prudent not to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with a history of DKA,” he added.

Dr. Taylor also advised: “Although not necessarily supported by this publication, I think that caution should be exercised in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients. ... Some late-stage type 2 diabetes patients may have severe insulin deficiency, and their physiology may resemble that of a type 1 diabetes patient.”

Dr. Taylor has previously advised against using SGLT2 inhibitors altogether in patients with type 1 diabetes.
 

Increased DKA risk seen across all SGLT2 inhibitors

The study involved electronic health care databases from seven Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom, from which 208,757 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were propensity-matched 1:1 to new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor users.

Of those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, 42.3% took canagliflozin, 30.7% dapagliflozin (Farxiga/Forxiga, AstraZeneca), and 27.0% empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim).

Over a mean 0.9-year follow-up, 521 patients were hospitalized with DKA, for an overall incidence rate of 1.41 per 1,000 person-years.

The rate with SGLT2 inhibitors, 2.03 per 1,000 person-years, was nearly three times that seen with DPP-4 inhibitors, at 0.75 per 1,000 person-years, a significant difference (hazard ratio, 2.85).

By individual SGLT2 inhibitor, the hazard ratios compared with DPP-4 inhibitors were 1.86 for dapagliflozin, 2.52 for empagliflozin, and 3.58 for canagliflozin, all statistically significant. Stratification by age, sex, and incident versus prevalent user did not change the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and DKA.

Asked about the higher rate for canagliflozin, Dr. Taylor commented: “It is hard to know whether there are real and reproducible differences in the risks of DKA among the various SGLT2 inhibitors. The differences are not huge and the populations are not well matched.”

But, he noted, “If canagliflozin triggers more glucosuria, it is not surprising that it would also induce more ketosis and possibly ketoacidosis.”

He also noted that the threefold relative increase in DKA with canagliflozin versus comparators is consistent with Janssen’s data, published in 2015. 

“It is, of course, reassuring that both [randomized clinical trials] and epidemiology produce similar estimates of the risk of drug-induced adverse events. Interestingly, the incidence of DKA is approximately threefold higher in the Canadian [data] as compared to Janssen’s clinical trials.”

Dr. Taylor also pointed out that, in the Janssen studies, the risk of canagliflozin-induced DKA appeared to be higher among patients with anti-islet antibodies, which suggests that some may have actually had autoimmune (type 1) diabetes. “So the overall risk of SGLT2 inhibitor-induced DKA may depend at least in part on the mix of patients.”

In the current study, individuals who never used insulin had a greater relative increase in risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, than did those who did use insulin (hazard ratios, 3.96 vs. 2.24, both compared with DPP-4 inhibitors). However, just among those taking SGLT2 inhibitors, the absolute risk for DKA was higher for those with prior insulin use (3.52 vs. 1.43 per 1,000 person-years). 

The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by ICES. Dr. Douros has reported receiving a salary support award from Fonds de recherche du Quebec – sante. Dr. Taylor was previously employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He is currently a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and has reported receiving research support provided to the University of Maryland School of Medicine by Regeneron.

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

Continued use of the nonsteroidal drug (NSAID) meloxicam was associated with less reported knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain at 4 weeks compared with switching to a placebo in a randomized trial.

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.

Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.

“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.

The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.

The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.

The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. David Walsh

“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.

Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.

Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.

“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.

He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.

“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”

Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.

It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”

Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.

SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.

Continued use of the nonsteroidal drug (NSAID) meloxicam was associated with less reported knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain at 4 weeks compared with switching to a placebo in a randomized trial.

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.

Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.

“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.

The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.

The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.

The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. David Walsh

“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.

Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.

Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.

“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.

He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.

“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”

Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.

It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”

Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.

SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.

Continued use of the nonsteroidal drug (NSAID) meloxicam was associated with less reported knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain at 4 weeks compared with switching to a placebo in a randomized trial.

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.

Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.

“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.

The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.

The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.

The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. David Walsh

“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.

Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.

Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.

“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.

He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.

“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”

Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.

It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”

Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.

SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.

Over the last 2 months, more than half of Americans have experienced some sort of adverse effect caused by stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

More than a third (36%) of the 1,313 respondents said they either had difficulty sleeping, falling asleep, or sleeping too much, KFF said in its latest Health Tracking Poll, conducted July 14-19, 2020. That was followed by poor appetite or overeating, which was mentioned by 32% of those surveyed.

Other adverse effects included frequent headaches or stomachaches (18%), temper-control issues (18%), increased drug or alcohol use (12%), and worsening of chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypertension (12%). Altogether, 52% of Americans have had at least one of these issues in the past 2 months, Liz Hamel and associates at KFF reported.

When asked directly whether worry or stress had has a negative effect on their overall mental health, 53% of the respondents said yes, breaking down to 26% reporting a major impact and 28% reporting a minor impact (figures have been rounded), they said.

“As life with the coronavirus pandemic wears on, Americans increasingly say it is taking a negative toll on their mental health,” the investigators wrote. Earlier polls showed that pandemic-related stress was having an impact on mental health for 39% of respondents in May, compared with 45% in early April and 32% in March.

In the July poll, Black adults were much more likely to report a negative mental health impact (68%) than were Hispanics or Whites, who were both at 51%. Age was also a factor: The youngest group of respondents (ages 18-29 years) had the highest negative-impact rate (62%), and the oldest group (65 years and older) had the lowest (47%), they said.

When it came to reporting the adverse effects of stress or worry, however, the situation was somewhat different. Hispanics had the highest rate of such effects at 63%, while Blacks had a rate of 57% and 47% of Whites reported issues with sleep, eating, temper, and other problems, Ms. Hamel and associates reported.

[email protected]

Over the last 2 months, more than half of Americans have experienced some sort of adverse effect caused by stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

More than a third (36%) of the 1,313 respondents said they either had difficulty sleeping, falling asleep, or sleeping too much, KFF said in its latest Health Tracking Poll, conducted July 14-19, 2020. That was followed by poor appetite or overeating, which was mentioned by 32% of those surveyed.

Other adverse effects included frequent headaches or stomachaches (18%), temper-control issues (18%), increased drug or alcohol use (12%), and worsening of chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypertension (12%). Altogether, 52% of Americans have had at least one of these issues in the past 2 months, Liz Hamel and associates at KFF reported.

When asked directly whether worry or stress had has a negative effect on their overall mental health, 53% of the respondents said yes, breaking down to 26% reporting a major impact and 28% reporting a minor impact (figures have been rounded), they said.

“As life with the coronavirus pandemic wears on, Americans increasingly say it is taking a negative toll on their mental health,” the investigators wrote. Earlier polls showed that pandemic-related stress was having an impact on mental health for 39% of respondents in May, compared with 45% in early April and 32% in March.

In the July poll, Black adults were much more likely to report a negative mental health impact (68%) than were Hispanics or Whites, who were both at 51%. Age was also a factor: The youngest group of respondents (ages 18-29 years) had the highest negative-impact rate (62%), and the oldest group (65 years and older) had the lowest (47%), they said.

When it came to reporting the adverse effects of stress or worry, however, the situation was somewhat different. Hispanics had the highest rate of such effects at 63%, while Blacks had a rate of 57% and 47% of Whites reported issues with sleep, eating, temper, and other problems, Ms. Hamel and associates reported.

[email protected]

Over the last 2 months, more than half of Americans have experienced some sort of adverse effect caused by stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

More than a third (36%) of the 1,313 respondents said they either had difficulty sleeping, falling asleep, or sleeping too much, KFF said in its latest Health Tracking Poll, conducted July 14-19, 2020. That was followed by poor appetite or overeating, which was mentioned by 32% of those surveyed.

Other adverse effects included frequent headaches or stomachaches (18%), temper-control issues (18%), increased drug or alcohol use (12%), and worsening of chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypertension (12%). Altogether, 52% of Americans have had at least one of these issues in the past 2 months, Liz Hamel and associates at KFF reported.

When asked directly whether worry or stress had has a negative effect on their overall mental health, 53% of the respondents said yes, breaking down to 26% reporting a major impact and 28% reporting a minor impact (figures have been rounded), they said.

“As life with the coronavirus pandemic wears on, Americans increasingly say it is taking a negative toll on their mental health,” the investigators wrote. Earlier polls showed that pandemic-related stress was having an impact on mental health for 39% of respondents in May, compared with 45% in early April and 32% in March.

In the July poll, Black adults were much more likely to report a negative mental health impact (68%) than were Hispanics or Whites, who were both at 51%. Age was also a factor: The youngest group of respondents (ages 18-29 years) had the highest negative-impact rate (62%), and the oldest group (65 years and older) had the lowest (47%), they said.

When it came to reporting the adverse effects of stress or worry, however, the situation was somewhat different. Hispanics had the highest rate of such effects at 63%, while Blacks had a rate of 57% and 47% of Whites reported issues with sleep, eating, temper, and other problems, Ms. Hamel and associates reported.

[email protected]

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends that genetic testing for inherited cardiovascular disease should be reserved for four specific types of heart diseases – cardiomyopathies, thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections, arrhythmias, and familial hypercholesterolemia – and should enlist skilled geneticists and genetic counselors in the care team.

The guidance comes in a scientific statement published online in the journal Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Kiran Musunuru, MD, PhD, MPH, ML, chair of the writing group for the scientific statement, described in an interview the rationale for publishing the statement at this time. “There was no prior single statement that summarized best practices for the whole gamut of inherited cardiovascular diseases in adults, only statements for individual diseases,” he said in an interview. “With genetic testing seeing explosive growth in the past few years, both in the clinical setting and with direct-to-consumer testing, we felt that cardiovascular practitioners would benefit from having a single document to serve as a general resource on genetic testing.”

The statement describes two types of patients who would be suitable for genetic testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD), Dr. Musunuru noted: “Patients who have been diagnosed with or are strongly suspected to have a cardiovascular disease that is often inherited and family members of patients who have been diagnosed with an inherited cardiovascular disease and found by genetic testing to have a mutation that is felt to be the cause of the disease.”

The statement also spells out two crucial elements for genetic testing: thorough disease-specific phenotyping – that is, using genetic information to identify the individual’s disease characteristics and a comprehensive family history that spans at least three generations. Testing should only proceed after patients has had genetic counseling and made a shared decision with their doctors.

“Genetic counseling is absolutely essential both before genetic testing to educate patients on what genetic testing entails and what potential results to expect, as well as the risks of testing; and after genetic testing, to review the results of the genetic testing and explain the potential consequences for the patient’s health and the health of family members, including children,” Dr. Musunuru said.

The process should involve board-certified geneticists or at least cardiovascular specialists well-versed in genetics and genetic counselors, the statement noted. The latter are “critical” in the care team, Dr. Musunuru said.

After the decision is made to do genetic testing, the next step is to decide the scope of the testing. That can range from targeted sequencing of a single gene or a few genes linked to the disease to large gene panels; the latter “may not increase the likelihood of clinically actionable results in adult patients,” Dr. Musunuru and colleagues wrote.

But genetic testing is no guarantee to identify a cause or confirm a diagnosis of CVD, the statement noted. “The yield for any genetic testing for any inherited cardiovascular disease remains <100%, usually much less than 100%,” the writing committee stated.

Dr. Musunuru explained that the results can sometimes be inconclusive. “In many cases, genetic testing reveals a mutation that is uninterpretable, what we call a variant of uncertain significance,” he said. “It is not clear whether the mutation increases the risk of disease or is entirely benign, which makes it very challenging to counsel patients as to whether anything should be done about the mutation.”

Even in a diagnosed patient the test results can be uncertain. “This makes it challenging to explain why the patient has the disease and whether any of the family members are at risk,” Dr. Musunuru said.

According to the statement, providers should encourage patients with a confirmed or likely pathogenic variant for CVD to share that information with “all of their at-risk relative,” the statement noted, suggesting “family letters” given to patients are a way to navigate HIPAA’s privacy limits.

The statement was written on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Clinical Cardiology.

Dr. Musunuru and writing group members have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Musunuru K et al. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067.

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends that genetic testing for inherited cardiovascular disease should be reserved for four specific types of heart diseases – cardiomyopathies, thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections, arrhythmias, and familial hypercholesterolemia – and should enlist skilled geneticists and genetic counselors in the care team.

The guidance comes in a scientific statement published online in the journal Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Kiran Musunuru, MD, PhD, MPH, ML, chair of the writing group for the scientific statement, described in an interview the rationale for publishing the statement at this time. “There was no prior single statement that summarized best practices for the whole gamut of inherited cardiovascular diseases in adults, only statements for individual diseases,” he said in an interview. “With genetic testing seeing explosive growth in the past few years, both in the clinical setting and with direct-to-consumer testing, we felt that cardiovascular practitioners would benefit from having a single document to serve as a general resource on genetic testing.”

The statement describes two types of patients who would be suitable for genetic testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD), Dr. Musunuru noted: “Patients who have been diagnosed with or are strongly suspected to have a cardiovascular disease that is often inherited and family members of patients who have been diagnosed with an inherited cardiovascular disease and found by genetic testing to have a mutation that is felt to be the cause of the disease.”

The statement also spells out two crucial elements for genetic testing: thorough disease-specific phenotyping – that is, using genetic information to identify the individual’s disease characteristics and a comprehensive family history that spans at least three generations. Testing should only proceed after patients has had genetic counseling and made a shared decision with their doctors.

“Genetic counseling is absolutely essential both before genetic testing to educate patients on what genetic testing entails and what potential results to expect, as well as the risks of testing; and after genetic testing, to review the results of the genetic testing and explain the potential consequences for the patient’s health and the health of family members, including children,” Dr. Musunuru said.

The process should involve board-certified geneticists or at least cardiovascular specialists well-versed in genetics and genetic counselors, the statement noted. The latter are “critical” in the care team, Dr. Musunuru said.

After the decision is made to do genetic testing, the next step is to decide the scope of the testing. That can range from targeted sequencing of a single gene or a few genes linked to the disease to large gene panels; the latter “may not increase the likelihood of clinically actionable results in adult patients,” Dr. Musunuru and colleagues wrote.

But genetic testing is no guarantee to identify a cause or confirm a diagnosis of CVD, the statement noted. “The yield for any genetic testing for any inherited cardiovascular disease remains <100%, usually much less than 100%,” the writing committee stated.

Dr. Musunuru explained that the results can sometimes be inconclusive. “In many cases, genetic testing reveals a mutation that is uninterpretable, what we call a variant of uncertain significance,” he said. “It is not clear whether the mutation increases the risk of disease or is entirely benign, which makes it very challenging to counsel patients as to whether anything should be done about the mutation.”

Even in a diagnosed patient the test results can be uncertain. “This makes it challenging to explain why the patient has the disease and whether any of the family members are at risk,” Dr. Musunuru said.

According to the statement, providers should encourage patients with a confirmed or likely pathogenic variant for CVD to share that information with “all of their at-risk relative,” the statement noted, suggesting “family letters” given to patients are a way to navigate HIPAA’s privacy limits.

The statement was written on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Clinical Cardiology.

Dr. Musunuru and writing group members have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Musunuru K et al. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067.

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends that genetic testing for inherited cardiovascular disease should be reserved for four specific types of heart diseases – cardiomyopathies, thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections, arrhythmias, and familial hypercholesterolemia – and should enlist skilled geneticists and genetic counselors in the care team.

The guidance comes in a scientific statement published online in the journal Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Kiran Musunuru, MD, PhD, MPH, ML, chair of the writing group for the scientific statement, described in an interview the rationale for publishing the statement at this time. “There was no prior single statement that summarized best practices for the whole gamut of inherited cardiovascular diseases in adults, only statements for individual diseases,” he said in an interview. “With genetic testing seeing explosive growth in the past few years, both in the clinical setting and with direct-to-consumer testing, we felt that cardiovascular practitioners would benefit from having a single document to serve as a general resource on genetic testing.”

The statement describes two types of patients who would be suitable for genetic testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD), Dr. Musunuru noted: “Patients who have been diagnosed with or are strongly suspected to have a cardiovascular disease that is often inherited and family members of patients who have been diagnosed with an inherited cardiovascular disease and found by genetic testing to have a mutation that is felt to be the cause of the disease.”

The statement also spells out two crucial elements for genetic testing: thorough disease-specific phenotyping – that is, using genetic information to identify the individual’s disease characteristics and a comprehensive family history that spans at least three generations. Testing should only proceed after patients has had genetic counseling and made a shared decision with their doctors.

“Genetic counseling is absolutely essential both before genetic testing to educate patients on what genetic testing entails and what potential results to expect, as well as the risks of testing; and after genetic testing, to review the results of the genetic testing and explain the potential consequences for the patient’s health and the health of family members, including children,” Dr. Musunuru said.

The process should involve board-certified geneticists or at least cardiovascular specialists well-versed in genetics and genetic counselors, the statement noted. The latter are “critical” in the care team, Dr. Musunuru said.

After the decision is made to do genetic testing, the next step is to decide the scope of the testing. That can range from targeted sequencing of a single gene or a few genes linked to the disease to large gene panels; the latter “may not increase the likelihood of clinically actionable results in adult patients,” Dr. Musunuru and colleagues wrote.

But genetic testing is no guarantee to identify a cause or confirm a diagnosis of CVD, the statement noted. “The yield for any genetic testing for any inherited cardiovascular disease remains <100%, usually much less than 100%,” the writing committee stated.

Dr. Musunuru explained that the results can sometimes be inconclusive. “In many cases, genetic testing reveals a mutation that is uninterpretable, what we call a variant of uncertain significance,” he said. “It is not clear whether the mutation increases the risk of disease or is entirely benign, which makes it very challenging to counsel patients as to whether anything should be done about the mutation.”

Even in a diagnosed patient the test results can be uncertain. “This makes it challenging to explain why the patient has the disease and whether any of the family members are at risk,” Dr. Musunuru said.

According to the statement, providers should encourage patients with a confirmed or likely pathogenic variant for CVD to share that information with “all of their at-risk relative,” the statement noted, suggesting “family letters” given to patients are a way to navigate HIPAA’s privacy limits.

The statement was written on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Clinical Cardiology.

Dr. Musunuru and writing group members have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Musunuru K et al. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus, Kite Pharma), the first approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The new agent is the second approved CAR T cell product developed by Kite and follows the 2017 approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“Despite promising advances, there are still major gaps in treatment for patients with MCL who progress following initial therapy,” investigator Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in a company statement. “Many patients have high-risk disease and are more likely to keep progressing, even after subsequent treatments.”

In the same press statement, Meghan Gutierrez, chief executive officer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, said: “This approval marks the first CAR T cell therapy approved for mantle cell lymphoma patients and represents a new frontier in the treatment of this disease.”

The approval of the single-infusion therapy is based on efficacy and safety data from the ongoing, single-arm ZUMA-2 pivotal trial, which enrolled 74 adult patients. All patients had previously received anthracycline- or bendamustine-containing chemotherapy, an anti-CD20 antibody therapy and a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib or acalabrutinib).

In the trial, there was an objective response rate, which was the primary outcome measure, of 87% among 60 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis; 62% had a complete response. 

Among all patients, follow-up was at least 6 months after their first objective disease response. Median duration of response has not yet been reached.

In terms of adverse events, 18% of the 82 patients evaluable for safety experienced > grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 37% experienced neurologic events, per the company statement. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3 or higher adverse reactions were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypotension, hypophosphatemia, encephalopathy, leukopenia, hypoxia, pyrexia, hyponatremia, hypertension, infection-pathogen unspecified, pneumonia, hypocalcemia, and lymphopenia.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel will be manufactured in Kite’s facility in California. In the pivotal trial, there was a 96% manufacturing success rate and a median manufacturing turnaround time of 15 days from leukapheresis to product delivery.  
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus, Kite Pharma), the first approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The new agent is the second approved CAR T cell product developed by Kite and follows the 2017 approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“Despite promising advances, there are still major gaps in treatment for patients with MCL who progress following initial therapy,” investigator Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in a company statement. “Many patients have high-risk disease and are more likely to keep progressing, even after subsequent treatments.”

In the same press statement, Meghan Gutierrez, chief executive officer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, said: “This approval marks the first CAR T cell therapy approved for mantle cell lymphoma patients and represents a new frontier in the treatment of this disease.”

The approval of the single-infusion therapy is based on efficacy and safety data from the ongoing, single-arm ZUMA-2 pivotal trial, which enrolled 74 adult patients. All patients had previously received anthracycline- or bendamustine-containing chemotherapy, an anti-CD20 antibody therapy and a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib or acalabrutinib).

In the trial, there was an objective response rate, which was the primary outcome measure, of 87% among 60 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis; 62% had a complete response. 

Among all patients, follow-up was at least 6 months after their first objective disease response. Median duration of response has not yet been reached.

In terms of adverse events, 18% of the 82 patients evaluable for safety experienced > grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 37% experienced neurologic events, per the company statement. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3 or higher adverse reactions were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypotension, hypophosphatemia, encephalopathy, leukopenia, hypoxia, pyrexia, hyponatremia, hypertension, infection-pathogen unspecified, pneumonia, hypocalcemia, and lymphopenia.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel will be manufactured in Kite’s facility in California. In the pivotal trial, there was a 96% manufacturing success rate and a median manufacturing turnaround time of 15 days from leukapheresis to product delivery.  
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus, Kite Pharma), the first approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The new agent is the second approved CAR T cell product developed by Kite and follows the 2017 approval of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

“Despite promising advances, there are still major gaps in treatment for patients with MCL who progress following initial therapy,” investigator Michael Wang, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in a company statement. “Many patients have high-risk disease and are more likely to keep progressing, even after subsequent treatments.”

In the same press statement, Meghan Gutierrez, chief executive officer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, said: “This approval marks the first CAR T cell therapy approved for mantle cell lymphoma patients and represents a new frontier in the treatment of this disease.”

The approval of the single-infusion therapy is based on efficacy and safety data from the ongoing, single-arm ZUMA-2 pivotal trial, which enrolled 74 adult patients. All patients had previously received anthracycline- or bendamustine-containing chemotherapy, an anti-CD20 antibody therapy and a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib or acalabrutinib).

In the trial, there was an objective response rate, which was the primary outcome measure, of 87% among 60 patients who were evaluable for efficacy analysis; 62% had a complete response. 

Among all patients, follow-up was at least 6 months after their first objective disease response. Median duration of response has not yet been reached.

In terms of adverse events, 18% of the 82 patients evaluable for safety experienced > grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 37% experienced neurologic events, per the company statement. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3 or higher adverse reactions were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypotension, hypophosphatemia, encephalopathy, leukopenia, hypoxia, pyrexia, hyponatremia, hypertension, infection-pathogen unspecified, pneumonia, hypocalcemia, and lymphopenia.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel will be manufactured in Kite’s facility in California. In the pivotal trial, there was a 96% manufacturing success rate and a median manufacturing turnaround time of 15 days from leukapheresis to product delivery.  
 

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

For the fifth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, claimed the number one spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published today by US News & World Report.

This year’s rankings include special recognition of the “herculean efforts” by the nation’s healthcare professionals in fighting COVID-19, often at great personal risk.

“The US News Hospital Heroes series is a cornerstone of this year’s rankings package, profiling more than 65 health care heroes from across the country, along with commentary from top executives at hospitals who faced the pandemic head on,” a news release from the magazine explains.

“The pandemic has altered, perhaps permanently, how patients get care and from whom they get it. Amid the disruption, we are steadfastly committed to providing the public with authoritative data for comparing hospital quality,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at US News, said in the release.

“No hospital’s clinical team came through this unprecedented health crisis unscathed. Our Hospital Heroes series is a tribute to recognizing individuals at urban and rural hospitals in communities across the country who have gone above and beyond during this unparalleled time in history,” said Harder.

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

Following Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio takes the number two spot this year (up from number four last year) in the magazine’s annual honor roll, which highlights hospitals that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, holds the number three spot, while New York-Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell in New York City and UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, tie for the number four spot.

Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which held the number two spot last year, has fallen to number six. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York City; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

4. (tie) New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York City

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

9. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York, New York City

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

13. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

15. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

18. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Saint Louis

18. (tie) Keck Hospital of USC, Los Angeles

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

In the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals: Specialty Rankings, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the number one spot in cancer, the Hospital for Special Surgery is number one in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic is number one in cardiology and heart surgery.

For this year’s rankings, US News developed a new cardiac rating that measures the quality of hospitals› transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which is rapidly being adopted as a minimally invasive alternative to aortic valve surgery.

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, NYC

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the 2020–2021 rankings and ratings, US News compared more than 4500 medical centers across the country in 16 specialties and 10 procedures and conditions. Of these, 563 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care. The top 20 hospitals, which deliver exceptional treatment across many areas of care, were also named to the honor roll.

The magazine notes that data for the 2020–2021 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings come from a period predating the COVID-19 pandemic and were not affected by the pandemic’s impact on hospitals. The methodologies are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival and discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the fifth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, claimed the number one spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published today by US News & World Report.

This year’s rankings include special recognition of the “herculean efforts” by the nation’s healthcare professionals in fighting COVID-19, often at great personal risk.

“The US News Hospital Heroes series is a cornerstone of this year’s rankings package, profiling more than 65 health care heroes from across the country, along with commentary from top executives at hospitals who faced the pandemic head on,” a news release from the magazine explains.

“The pandemic has altered, perhaps permanently, how patients get care and from whom they get it. Amid the disruption, we are steadfastly committed to providing the public with authoritative data for comparing hospital quality,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at US News, said in the release.

“No hospital’s clinical team came through this unprecedented health crisis unscathed. Our Hospital Heroes series is a tribute to recognizing individuals at urban and rural hospitals in communities across the country who have gone above and beyond during this unparalleled time in history,” said Harder.

Mayo Clinic Still Number One