Federal Practitioner

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

[email protected]

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

[email protected]

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The proportion of Americans who’ve experienced two or more sunburns in the past year rose significantly during a recent 10-year period, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.

More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.

For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.

Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.

Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.

In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.

In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.

A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.

A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.

The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.

The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.

“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”

One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.

The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.

The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.

Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.

A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.

The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.

The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.

“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”

One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.

The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.

The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.

Further refinement of data from patients hospitalized worldwide for COVID-19 disease showed a 12% prevalence rate of patients with diabetes in this population and a 17% prevalence rate for hypertension.

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

These are lower rates than previously reported for COVID-19 patients with either of these two comorbidities, yet the findings still document important epidemiologic links between diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19, said the study’s authors.

A meta-analysis of data from 15,794 patients hospitalized because of COVID-19 disease that was drawn from 65 carefully curated reports published from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, also showed that, among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes (either type 1 or type 2), the rate of patients who required ICU admission was 96% higher than among those without diabetes and mortality was 2.78-fold higher, both statistically significant differences.

The rate of ICU admissions among those hospitalized with COVID-19 who also had hypertension was 2.95-fold above those without hypertension, and mortality was 2.39-fold higher, also statistically significant differences, reported a team of researchers in the recently published report.

The new meta-analysis was notable for the extra effort investigators employed to eliminate duplicated patients from their database of COVID-19 patients included in various published reports, a potential source of bias that likely introduced errors into prior meta-analyses that used similar data. “We found an overwhelming proportion of studies at high risk of data repetition,” the report said. Virtually all of the included studies were retrospective case studies, nearly two-thirds had data from a single center, and 71% of the studies included only patients in China.

“We developed a method to identify reports that had a high risk for repetitions” of included patients, said Fady Hannah-Shmouni, MD, a senior author of the study. “We also used methods to minimize bias, we excluded certain patients populations, and we applied a uniform definition of COVID-19 disease severity,” specifically patients who died or needed ICU admission, because the definitions used originally by many of the reports were very heterogeneous, said Dr. Hannah-Shmouni, principal investigator for Endocrine, Genetics, and Hypertension at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Despite the effort to eliminate case duplications, the analysis remains subject to additional confounders, in part because of a lack of comprehensive patient information on factors such as smoking, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and the specific type of diabetes or hypertension a patient had. “Even with these limitations, we were able to show that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes is elevated in patients with COVID-19, that patients with diabetes have increased risk for both death and ICU admissions, and that there is the potential for reverse causality in the reporting of hypertension as a risk factor for COVID-19,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said in an interview. “We believe the explosion of data that associated hypertension and COVID-19 may be partially the result of reverse causality.”

One possible example of this reverse causality is the overlap between hypertension and age as potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease or increased infection severity. People “older than 80 frequently develop severe disease if infected with the novel coronavirus, and 80% of people older than 80 have hypertension, so it’s not surprising that hypertension is highly prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” but this “does not imply a causal relationship between hypertension and severe COVID-19; the risk of hypertension probably depends on older age,” noted Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD, a coauthor of the study, as well as professor of medicine at McGill University and director of the Hypertension and Vascular Research Unit at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, both in Montreal. “My current opinion, on the basis of the totality of data, is that hypertension does not worsen [COVID-19] outcomes, but patients who are elderly, obese, diabetic, or immunocompromised are susceptible to more severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes,” said Dr. Schiffrin in an interview.

The new findings show “there is certainly an interplay between the virus, diabetes, and hypertension and other risk factors,” and while still limited by biases, the new findings “get closer” to correctly estimating the COVID-19 risks associated with these comorbidities,” Dr. Hannah-Shmouni said.

The connections identified between COVID-19, diabetes, and hypertension mean that patients with these chronic diseases should receive education about their COVID-19 risks and should have adequate access to the drugs and supplies they need to control blood pressure and hyperglycemia. Patients with diabetes also need to be current on vaccinations to reduce their risk for pneumonia. And recognition of the heightened COVID-19 risk for people with these comorbidities is important among people who work in relevant government agencies, health care workers, and patient advocacy groups, he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hannah-Shmouni and Dr. Schiffrin had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barrera FJ et al. J Endocn Soc. 2020 July 21. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa102.

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant drop in the use of prescription opioids and in deaths associated with such use; but at the same time there’s been a dramatic increase in fatalities involving illicit opioids and stimulants, a new report from the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force shows.

Although the medical community has made some important progress against the opioid epidemic, with a 37% reduction in opioid prescribing since 2013, illicit drugs are now the dominant reason why drug overdoses kill more than 70,000 people each year, the report says.

In an effort to improve the situation, the AMA Opioid Task Force is urging the removal of barriers to evidence-based care for patients who have pain and for those who have substance use disorders (SUDs). The report notes that “red tape and misguided policies are grave dangers” to these patients.

“It is critically important as we see drug overdoses increasing that we work towards reducing barriers of care for substance use abusers,” Task Force Chair Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in an interview.

“At present, the status quo is killing far too many of our loved ones and wreaking havoc in our communities,” she said.

Dr. Harris noted that “a more coordinated/integrated approach” is needed to help individuals with SUDs.

“It is vitally important that these individuals can get access to treatment. Everyone deserves the opportunity for care,” she added.

Dramatic increases

The report cites figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the following regarding the period from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019:

• Deaths involving illicitly manufactured  and fentanyl analogues increased from 5,766 to 36,509.
• Deaths involving stimulants such as  increased from 4,402 to 16,279.
• Deaths involving cocaine increased from 5,496 to 15,974.
• Deaths involving heroin increased from 10,788 to 14,079.
• Deaths involving prescription opioids decreased from 12,269 to 11,904.

The report notes that deaths involving prescription opioids peaked in July 2017 at 15,003.

Some good news

In addition to the 37% reduction in opioid prescribing in recent years, the AMA lists other points of progress, such as a large increase in prescription drug monitoring program registrations. More than 1.8 million physicians and other healthcare professionals now participate in these programs.

Also, more physicians are now certified to treat opioid use disorder. More than 85,000 physicians, as well as a growing number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are now certified to treat patients in the office with buprenorphine. This represents an increase of more than 50,000 from 2017.

Access to naloxone is also increasing. More than 1 million naloxone prescriptions were dispensed in 2019 – nearly double the amount in 2018. This represents a 649% increase from 2017.

“We have made some good progress, but we can’t declare victory, and there are far too many barriers to getting treatment for substance use disorder,” Dr. Harris said.

“Policymakers, public health officials, and insurance companies need to come together to create a system where there are no barriers to care for people with substance use disorder and for those needing pain medications,” she added.

At present, prior authorization is often needed before these patients can receive medication. “This involves quite a bit of administration, filling in forms, making phone calls, and this is stopping people getting the care they need,” said Dr. Harris.

“This is a highly regulated environment. There are also regulations on the amount of methadone that can be prescribed and for the prescription of buprenorphine, which has to be initiated in person,” she said.

Will COVID-19 bring change?

Dr. Harris noted that some of these regulations have been relaxed during the COVID-19 crisis so that physicians could ensure that patients have continued access to medication, and she suggested that this may pave the way for the future.

“We need now to look at this carefully and have a conversation about whether these relaxations can be continued. But this would have to be evidence based. Perhaps we can use experience from the COVID-19 period to guide future policy on this,” she said.

The report highlights that despite medical society and patient advocacy, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that limit public and private insurers from imposing prior authorization requirements on SUD services or medications.

The Task Force urges removal of remaining prior authorizations, step therapy, and other inappropriate administrative burdens that delay or deny care for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

The organization is also calling for better implementation of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws that require health insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental health and SUD treatment and services that they do for medical/surgical care.

At present, only a few states have taken meaningful action to enact or enforce those laws, the report notes.

The Task Force also recommends the implementation of systems to track overdose and mortality trends to provide equitable public health interventions. These measures would include comprehensive, disaggregated racial and ethnic data collection related to testing, hospitalization, and mortality associated with opioids and other substances.

“We know that ending the drug overdose epidemic will not be easy, but if policymakers allow the status quo to continue, it will be impossible,” Dr. Harris said.

“This is particularly important given concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the drug overdose epidemic. Physicians will continue to do our part. We urge policymakers to do theirs,” she added.
 

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

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant drop in the use of prescription opioids and in deaths associated with such use; but at the same time there’s been a dramatic increase in fatalities involving illicit opioids and stimulants, a new report from the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force shows.

Although the medical community has made some important progress against the opioid epidemic, with a 37% reduction in opioid prescribing since 2013, illicit drugs are now the dominant reason why drug overdoses kill more than 70,000 people each year, the report says.

In an effort to improve the situation, the AMA Opioid Task Force is urging the removal of barriers to evidence-based care for patients who have pain and for those who have substance use disorders (SUDs). The report notes that “red tape and misguided policies are grave dangers” to these patients.

“It is critically important as we see drug overdoses increasing that we work towards reducing barriers of care for substance use abusers,” Task Force Chair Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in an interview.

“At present, the status quo is killing far too many of our loved ones and wreaking havoc in our communities,” she said.

Dr. Harris noted that “a more coordinated/integrated approach” is needed to help individuals with SUDs.

“It is vitally important that these individuals can get access to treatment. Everyone deserves the opportunity for care,” she added.

Dramatic increases

The report cites figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the following regarding the period from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019:

• Deaths involving illicitly manufactured  and fentanyl analogues increased from 5,766 to 36,509.
• Deaths involving stimulants such as  increased from 4,402 to 16,279.
• Deaths involving cocaine increased from 5,496 to 15,974.
• Deaths involving heroin increased from 10,788 to 14,079.
• Deaths involving prescription opioids decreased from 12,269 to 11,904.

The report notes that deaths involving prescription opioids peaked in July 2017 at 15,003.

Some good news

In addition to the 37% reduction in opioid prescribing in recent years, the AMA lists other points of progress, such as a large increase in prescription drug monitoring program registrations. More than 1.8 million physicians and other healthcare professionals now participate in these programs.

Also, more physicians are now certified to treat opioid use disorder. More than 85,000 physicians, as well as a growing number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are now certified to treat patients in the office with buprenorphine. This represents an increase of more than 50,000 from 2017.

Access to naloxone is also increasing. More than 1 million naloxone prescriptions were dispensed in 2019 – nearly double the amount in 2018. This represents a 649% increase from 2017.

“We have made some good progress, but we can’t declare victory, and there are far too many barriers to getting treatment for substance use disorder,” Dr. Harris said.

“Policymakers, public health officials, and insurance companies need to come together to create a system where there are no barriers to care for people with substance use disorder and for those needing pain medications,” she added.

At present, prior authorization is often needed before these patients can receive medication. “This involves quite a bit of administration, filling in forms, making phone calls, and this is stopping people getting the care they need,” said Dr. Harris.

“This is a highly regulated environment. There are also regulations on the amount of methadone that can be prescribed and for the prescription of buprenorphine, which has to be initiated in person,” she said.

Will COVID-19 bring change?

Dr. Harris noted that some of these regulations have been relaxed during the COVID-19 crisis so that physicians could ensure that patients have continued access to medication, and she suggested that this may pave the way for the future.

“We need now to look at this carefully and have a conversation about whether these relaxations can be continued. But this would have to be evidence based. Perhaps we can use experience from the COVID-19 period to guide future policy on this,” she said.

The report highlights that despite medical society and patient advocacy, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that limit public and private insurers from imposing prior authorization requirements on SUD services or medications.

The Task Force urges removal of remaining prior authorizations, step therapy, and other inappropriate administrative burdens that delay or deny care for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

The organization is also calling for better implementation of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws that require health insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental health and SUD treatment and services that they do for medical/surgical care.

At present, only a few states have taken meaningful action to enact or enforce those laws, the report notes.

The Task Force also recommends the implementation of systems to track overdose and mortality trends to provide equitable public health interventions. These measures would include comprehensive, disaggregated racial and ethnic data collection related to testing, hospitalization, and mortality associated with opioids and other substances.

“We know that ending the drug overdose epidemic will not be easy, but if policymakers allow the status quo to continue, it will be impossible,” Dr. Harris said.

“This is particularly important given concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the drug overdose epidemic. Physicians will continue to do our part. We urge policymakers to do theirs,” she added.
 

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

In the past 5 years, there has been a significant drop in the use of prescription opioids and in deaths associated with such use; but at the same time there’s been a dramatic increase in fatalities involving illicit opioids and stimulants, a new report from the American Medical Association (AMA) Opioid Task Force shows.

Although the medical community has made some important progress against the opioid epidemic, with a 37% reduction in opioid prescribing since 2013, illicit drugs are now the dominant reason why drug overdoses kill more than 70,000 people each year, the report says.

In an effort to improve the situation, the AMA Opioid Task Force is urging the removal of barriers to evidence-based care for patients who have pain and for those who have substance use disorders (SUDs). The report notes that “red tape and misguided policies are grave dangers” to these patients.

“It is critically important as we see drug overdoses increasing that we work towards reducing barriers of care for substance use abusers,” Task Force Chair Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in an interview.

“At present, the status quo is killing far too many of our loved ones and wreaking havoc in our communities,” she said.

Dr. Harris noted that “a more coordinated/integrated approach” is needed to help individuals with SUDs.

“It is vitally important that these individuals can get access to treatment. Everyone deserves the opportunity for care,” she added.

Dramatic increases

The report cites figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the following regarding the period from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019:

• Deaths involving illicitly manufactured  and fentanyl analogues increased from 5,766 to 36,509.
• Deaths involving stimulants such as  increased from 4,402 to 16,279.
• Deaths involving cocaine increased from 5,496 to 15,974.
• Deaths involving heroin increased from 10,788 to 14,079.
• Deaths involving prescription opioids decreased from 12,269 to 11,904.

The report notes that deaths involving prescription opioids peaked in July 2017 at 15,003.

Some good news

In addition to the 37% reduction in opioid prescribing in recent years, the AMA lists other points of progress, such as a large increase in prescription drug monitoring program registrations. More than 1.8 million physicians and other healthcare professionals now participate in these programs.

Also, more physicians are now certified to treat opioid use disorder. More than 85,000 physicians, as well as a growing number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are now certified to treat patients in the office with buprenorphine. This represents an increase of more than 50,000 from 2017.

Access to naloxone is also increasing. More than 1 million naloxone prescriptions were dispensed in 2019 – nearly double the amount in 2018. This represents a 649% increase from 2017.

“We have made some good progress, but we can’t declare victory, and there are far too many barriers to getting treatment for substance use disorder,” Dr. Harris said.

“Policymakers, public health officials, and insurance companies need to come together to create a system where there are no barriers to care for people with substance use disorder and for those needing pain medications,” she added.

At present, prior authorization is often needed before these patients can receive medication. “This involves quite a bit of administration, filling in forms, making phone calls, and this is stopping people getting the care they need,” said Dr. Harris.

“This is a highly regulated environment. There are also regulations on the amount of methadone that can be prescribed and for the prescription of buprenorphine, which has to be initiated in person,” she said.

Will COVID-19 bring change?

Dr. Harris noted that some of these regulations have been relaxed during the COVID-19 crisis so that physicians could ensure that patients have continued access to medication, and she suggested that this may pave the way for the future.

“We need now to look at this carefully and have a conversation about whether these relaxations can be continued. But this would have to be evidence based. Perhaps we can use experience from the COVID-19 period to guide future policy on this,” she said.

The report highlights that despite medical society and patient advocacy, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that limit public and private insurers from imposing prior authorization requirements on SUD services or medications.

The Task Force urges removal of remaining prior authorizations, step therapy, and other inappropriate administrative burdens that delay or deny care for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications used as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.

The organization is also calling for better implementation of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws that require health insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental health and SUD treatment and services that they do for medical/surgical care.

At present, only a few states have taken meaningful action to enact or enforce those laws, the report notes.

The Task Force also recommends the implementation of systems to track overdose and mortality trends to provide equitable public health interventions. These measures would include comprehensive, disaggregated racial and ethnic data collection related to testing, hospitalization, and mortality associated with opioids and other substances.

“We know that ending the drug overdose epidemic will not be easy, but if policymakers allow the status quo to continue, it will be impossible,” Dr. Harris said.

“This is particularly important given concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic is worsening the drug overdose epidemic. Physicians will continue to do our part. We urge policymakers to do theirs,” she added.
 

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

Treatment with high-dose methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab (Actemra, Genentech) as needed was associated with faster respiratory recovery, a lower likelihood of mechanical ventilation, and fewer in-hospital deaths compared with supportive care alone among people with COVID-19 experiencing a hyperinflammatory state known as a cytokine storm.

Compared with historic controls, participants in the treatment group were 79% more likely to achieve at least a two-stage improvement in respiratory status, for example.

“COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome [CSS] is an important complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection in up to 25% of the patients,” lead author Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Furthermore, CSS often leads to death in this population, said Dr. Ramiro, a consultant rheumatologist and senior researcher at Leiden University Medical Center and Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, the Netherlands.

Results of the COVID High-Intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine Storm Syndrome (CHIC) study were published online July 20 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

Contrary to guidance?

The World Health Organization (WHO) cautions against administering corticosteroids to some critically ill patients with COVID-19. “WHO recommends against the routine use of systemic corticosteroids for treatment of viral pneumonia,” according to an interim guidance document on the clinical management of COVID-19 published May 27.

Dr. Ramiro and colleagues make a distinction, however, noting “the risk profile of such a short course of glucocorticoid for treatment of CSS needs to be separated from preexisting chronic use of glucocorticoid for conditions like rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.”

Participants in the current study tolerated immunosuppressive therapy well without evidence of impaired viral clearance or bacterial superinfection, they added.

Other experts disagree with recent recommendations to use corticosteroids to treat a hyperimmune response or suspected adrenal insufficiency in the setting of refractory shock in patients with COVID-19.

Information about immunosuppressive therapy and CSS linked to COVID-19 remains anecdotal, however, Dr. Ramiro and colleagues noted.

The researchers assessed outcomes of 86 individuals with COVID-19-associated CSS treated with high-dose methylprednisolone plus/minus tocilizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody. They compared them with another 86 patients with COVID-19 treated with supportive care before initiation of the combination therapy protocol.

Participants with CSS had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower at rest or tachypnea exceeding 30 breaths per minute.

They also had at least two of the following: C-reactive protein > 100 mg/L; serum ferritin > 900 mcg/L at one occasion or a twofold increase at admission within 48 hours; or D-dimer levels > 1,500 mcg/L.

The treatment group received methylprednisolone 250 mg intravenously on day 1, followed by 80 mg intravenously on days 2-5. Investigators permitted a 2-day extension if indicated.

Those who failed to clinically improve or experienced respiratory decline could also receive intravenous tocilizumab on day 2 or after. The agent was dosed at 8 mg/kg body weight during a single infusion from day 2-5 up to a maximum of 800 mg.

In all, 37 participants received tocilizumab, including two participants who received a second dose 5 days after initial treatment.  

Except for one patient in the treatment group, all participants also received antibiotic treatment and nearly 80% received chloroquine.
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

The primary outcome of at least a two-stage improvement in respiratory status on a WHO scale associated with treatment yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.79. The treatment group achieved this improvement a median 7 days earlier than controls.

Mechanical ventilation to treat respiratory deterioration was 71% less likely for the treatment group versus controls (HR, 0.29).

The treatment group were also 65% less likely to die in hospital (HR, 0.35) than were controls.

The researchers also reported a significant difference in the number of deaths at day 14 in the treatment vs. control group, at 10 vs. 33 patients (P < .0001).
 

Glucocorticoid sufficient for many

In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients who received tocilizumab, the benefits of treatment remained statistically significant, “suggesting that a clinically relevant treatment effect can be reached by high-dose glucocorticoids alone,” the researchers noted.

This finding suggests “that the timely administration of high-dose glucocorticoids alone may provide significant benefit in more than half of the patients, and that tocilizumab is only needed in those cases that had insufficient clinical improvement on methylprednisolone alone,” they added.

“This is an important finding given the limited availability of tocilizumab in many countries and tocilizumab’s high costs.”

Complications were fairly balanced between groups. For example, bacterial infections during hospitalization were diagnosed in eight patients in the treatment group versus seven in the control group.

In addition, cardiac arrhythmias occurred in both groups, but slightly less frequently in the treatment group (P = .265), and there was a trend towards more pulmonary embolisms in the treatment group (P = .059).
 

Strengths and limitations

“A treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids is a convenient choice since glucocorticoids are safe, widely available, and inexpensive,” the researchers noted. “Longer follow-up, however, is needed to give final resolution about the safety and efficacy of the strategy.”

A strength of the study was “meticulous selection of those patients more likely to benefit from immunosuppressive treatment, namely patients with a CSS,” she added.

The study featured a prospective, observational design for the treatment group and retrospective analysis of the historic controls. “Methodologically, the main limitation of the study is not being a randomized controlled trial,” she noted.

“Ethically it has shown to be very rewarding to consciously decide against a randomized control trial, as we are talking about a disease that if only treated with supportive care can lead to mortality up to almost 50% from COVID-19-associated CSS,” Dr. Ramiro said.

Going forward, Dr. Ramiro plans to continue monitoring patients who experienced CSS to assess their outcome post-COVID-19 infection. “We want to focus on cardiorespiratory, functional, and quality of life outcomes,” she said. “We will also compare the outcomes between patients that have received immunosuppression with those that haven’t.”
 

‘Quite interesting’ results

“We desperately need better evidence to guide the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” Nihar R. Desai, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview.

“These data from the Netherlands are quite interesting and provide another signal to support the use of corticosteroids, with tocilizumab if needed, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 to improve outcomes,” added Dr. Desai, associate professor of medicine and investigator at the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“While these data are not randomized and have a relatively small sample size, we had recently seen the results of the RECOVERY trial, a UK-based randomized trial demonstrating the benefit of steroids in COVID-19,” he said.

“Taken together, these studies seem to suggest that there is a benefit with steroid therapy.” Further validation of these results is warranted, he added.
“While not a randomized clinical trial, and thus susceptible to unmeasured bias, the study adds to mounting evidence that supports targeting the excessive inflammation found in some patients with COVID-19,” Jared Radbel, MD, a pulmonologist, critical care specialist, and assistant professor of medicine at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., said in an interview.

Dr. Radbel added that he is part of a multicenter group that has submitted a manuscript examining outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab.

Dr. Ramiro, Dr. Desai, and Dr. Radbel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Treatment with high-dose methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab (Actemra, Genentech) as needed was associated with faster respiratory recovery, a lower likelihood of mechanical ventilation, and fewer in-hospital deaths compared with supportive care alone among people with COVID-19 experiencing a hyperinflammatory state known as a cytokine storm.

Compared with historic controls, participants in the treatment group were 79% more likely to achieve at least a two-stage improvement in respiratory status, for example.

“COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome [CSS] is an important complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection in up to 25% of the patients,” lead author Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Furthermore, CSS often leads to death in this population, said Dr. Ramiro, a consultant rheumatologist and senior researcher at Leiden University Medical Center and Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, the Netherlands.

Results of the COVID High-Intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine Storm Syndrome (CHIC) study were published online July 20 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

Contrary to guidance?

The World Health Organization (WHO) cautions against administering corticosteroids to some critically ill patients with COVID-19. “WHO recommends against the routine use of systemic corticosteroids for treatment of viral pneumonia,” according to an interim guidance document on the clinical management of COVID-19 published May 27.

Dr. Ramiro and colleagues make a distinction, however, noting “the risk profile of such a short course of glucocorticoid for treatment of CSS needs to be separated from preexisting chronic use of glucocorticoid for conditions like rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.”

Participants in the current study tolerated immunosuppressive therapy well without evidence of impaired viral clearance or bacterial superinfection, they added.

Other experts disagree with recent recommendations to use corticosteroids to treat a hyperimmune response or suspected adrenal insufficiency in the setting of refractory shock in patients with COVID-19.

Information about immunosuppressive therapy and CSS linked to COVID-19 remains anecdotal, however, Dr. Ramiro and colleagues noted.

The researchers assessed outcomes of 86 individuals with COVID-19-associated CSS treated with high-dose methylprednisolone plus/minus tocilizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody. They compared them with another 86 patients with COVID-19 treated with supportive care before initiation of the combination therapy protocol.

Participants with CSS had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower at rest or tachypnea exceeding 30 breaths per minute.

They also had at least two of the following: C-reactive protein > 100 mg/L; serum ferritin > 900 mcg/L at one occasion or a twofold increase at admission within 48 hours; or D-dimer levels > 1,500 mcg/L.

The treatment group received methylprednisolone 250 mg intravenously on day 1, followed by 80 mg intravenously on days 2-5. Investigators permitted a 2-day extension if indicated.

Those who failed to clinically improve or experienced respiratory decline could also receive intravenous tocilizumab on day 2 or after. The agent was dosed at 8 mg/kg body weight during a single infusion from day 2-5 up to a maximum of 800 mg.

In all, 37 participants received tocilizumab, including two participants who received a second dose 5 days after initial treatment.  

Except for one patient in the treatment group, all participants also received antibiotic treatment and nearly 80% received chloroquine.
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

The primary outcome of at least a two-stage improvement in respiratory status on a WHO scale associated with treatment yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.79. The treatment group achieved this improvement a median 7 days earlier than controls.

Mechanical ventilation to treat respiratory deterioration was 71% less likely for the treatment group versus controls (HR, 0.29).

The treatment group were also 65% less likely to die in hospital (HR, 0.35) than were controls.

The researchers also reported a significant difference in the number of deaths at day 14 in the treatment vs. control group, at 10 vs. 33 patients (P < .0001).
 

Glucocorticoid sufficient for many

In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients who received tocilizumab, the benefits of treatment remained statistically significant, “suggesting that a clinically relevant treatment effect can be reached by high-dose glucocorticoids alone,” the researchers noted.

This finding suggests “that the timely administration of high-dose glucocorticoids alone may provide significant benefit in more than half of the patients, and that tocilizumab is only needed in those cases that had insufficient clinical improvement on methylprednisolone alone,” they added.

“This is an important finding given the limited availability of tocilizumab in many countries and tocilizumab’s high costs.”

Complications were fairly balanced between groups. For example, bacterial infections during hospitalization were diagnosed in eight patients in the treatment group versus seven in the control group.

In addition, cardiac arrhythmias occurred in both groups, but slightly less frequently in the treatment group (P = .265), and there was a trend towards more pulmonary embolisms in the treatment group (P = .059).
 

Strengths and limitations

“A treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids is a convenient choice since glucocorticoids are safe, widely available, and inexpensive,” the researchers noted. “Longer follow-up, however, is needed to give final resolution about the safety and efficacy of the strategy.”

A strength of the study was “meticulous selection of those patients more likely to benefit from immunosuppressive treatment, namely patients with a CSS,” she added.

The study featured a prospective, observational design for the treatment group and retrospective analysis of the historic controls. “Methodologically, the main limitation of the study is not being a randomized controlled trial,” she noted.

“Ethically it has shown to be very rewarding to consciously decide against a randomized control trial, as we are talking about a disease that if only treated with supportive care can lead to mortality up to almost 50% from COVID-19-associated CSS,” Dr. Ramiro said.

Going forward, Dr. Ramiro plans to continue monitoring patients who experienced CSS to assess their outcome post-COVID-19 infection. “We want to focus on cardiorespiratory, functional, and quality of life outcomes,” she said. “We will also compare the outcomes between patients that have received immunosuppression with those that haven’t.”
 

‘Quite interesting’ results

“We desperately need better evidence to guide the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” Nihar R. Desai, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview.

“These data from the Netherlands are quite interesting and provide another signal to support the use of corticosteroids, with tocilizumab if needed, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 to improve outcomes,” added Dr. Desai, associate professor of medicine and investigator at the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“While these data are not randomized and have a relatively small sample size, we had recently seen the results of the RECOVERY trial, a UK-based randomized trial demonstrating the benefit of steroids in COVID-19,” he said.

“Taken together, these studies seem to suggest that there is a benefit with steroid therapy.” Further validation of these results is warranted, he added.
“While not a randomized clinical trial, and thus susceptible to unmeasured bias, the study adds to mounting evidence that supports targeting the excessive inflammation found in some patients with COVID-19,” Jared Radbel, MD, a pulmonologist, critical care specialist, and assistant professor of medicine at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., said in an interview.

Dr. Radbel added that he is part of a multicenter group that has submitted a manuscript examining outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab.

Dr. Ramiro, Dr. Desai, and Dr. Radbel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Treatment with high-dose methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab (Actemra, Genentech) as needed was associated with faster respiratory recovery, a lower likelihood of mechanical ventilation, and fewer in-hospital deaths compared with supportive care alone among people with COVID-19 experiencing a hyperinflammatory state known as a cytokine storm.

Compared with historic controls, participants in the treatment group were 79% more likely to achieve at least a two-stage improvement in respiratory status, for example.

“COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome [CSS] is an important complication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection in up to 25% of the patients,” lead author Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Furthermore, CSS often leads to death in this population, said Dr. Ramiro, a consultant rheumatologist and senior researcher at Leiden University Medical Center and Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, the Netherlands.

Results of the COVID High-Intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine Storm Syndrome (CHIC) study were published online July 20 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

Contrary to guidance?

The World Health Organization (WHO) cautions against administering corticosteroids to some critically ill patients with COVID-19. “WHO recommends against the routine use of systemic corticosteroids for treatment of viral pneumonia,” according to an interim guidance document on the clinical management of COVID-19 published May 27.

Dr. Ramiro and colleagues make a distinction, however, noting “the risk profile of such a short course of glucocorticoid for treatment of CSS needs to be separated from preexisting chronic use of glucocorticoid for conditions like rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.”

Participants in the current study tolerated immunosuppressive therapy well without evidence of impaired viral clearance or bacterial superinfection, they added.

Other experts disagree with recent recommendations to use corticosteroids to treat a hyperimmune response or suspected adrenal insufficiency in the setting of refractory shock in patients with COVID-19.

Information about immunosuppressive therapy and CSS linked to COVID-19 remains anecdotal, however, Dr. Ramiro and colleagues noted.

The researchers assessed outcomes of 86 individuals with COVID-19-associated CSS treated with high-dose methylprednisolone plus/minus tocilizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody. They compared them with another 86 patients with COVID-19 treated with supportive care before initiation of the combination therapy protocol.

Participants with CSS had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower at rest or tachypnea exceeding 30 breaths per minute.

They also had at least two of the following: C-reactive protein > 100 mg/L; serum ferritin > 900 mcg/L at one occasion or a twofold increase at admission within 48 hours; or D-dimer levels > 1,500 mcg/L.

The treatment group received methylprednisolone 250 mg intravenously on day 1, followed by 80 mg intravenously on days 2-5. Investigators permitted a 2-day extension if indicated.

Those who failed to clinically improve or experienced respiratory decline could also receive intravenous tocilizumab on day 2 or after. The agent was dosed at 8 mg/kg body weight during a single infusion from day 2-5 up to a maximum of 800 mg.

In all, 37 participants received tocilizumab, including two participants who received a second dose 5 days after initial treatment.  

Except for one patient in the treatment group, all participants also received antibiotic treatment and nearly 80% received chloroquine.
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

The primary outcome of at least a two-stage improvement in respiratory status on a WHO scale associated with treatment yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.79. The treatment group achieved this improvement a median 7 days earlier than controls.

Mechanical ventilation to treat respiratory deterioration was 71% less likely for the treatment group versus controls (HR, 0.29).

The treatment group were also 65% less likely to die in hospital (HR, 0.35) than were controls.

The researchers also reported a significant difference in the number of deaths at day 14 in the treatment vs. control group, at 10 vs. 33 patients (P < .0001).
 

Glucocorticoid sufficient for many

In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients who received tocilizumab, the benefits of treatment remained statistically significant, “suggesting that a clinically relevant treatment effect can be reached by high-dose glucocorticoids alone,” the researchers noted.

This finding suggests “that the timely administration of high-dose glucocorticoids alone may provide significant benefit in more than half of the patients, and that tocilizumab is only needed in those cases that had insufficient clinical improvement on methylprednisolone alone,” they added.

“This is an important finding given the limited availability of tocilizumab in many countries and tocilizumab’s high costs.”

Complications were fairly balanced between groups. For example, bacterial infections during hospitalization were diagnosed in eight patients in the treatment group versus seven in the control group.

In addition, cardiac arrhythmias occurred in both groups, but slightly less frequently in the treatment group (P = .265), and there was a trend towards more pulmonary embolisms in the treatment group (P = .059).
 

Strengths and limitations

“A treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids is a convenient choice since glucocorticoids are safe, widely available, and inexpensive,” the researchers noted. “Longer follow-up, however, is needed to give final resolution about the safety and efficacy of the strategy.”

A strength of the study was “meticulous selection of those patients more likely to benefit from immunosuppressive treatment, namely patients with a CSS,” she added.

The study featured a prospective, observational design for the treatment group and retrospective analysis of the historic controls. “Methodologically, the main limitation of the study is not being a randomized controlled trial,” she noted.

“Ethically it has shown to be very rewarding to consciously decide against a randomized control trial, as we are talking about a disease that if only treated with supportive care can lead to mortality up to almost 50% from COVID-19-associated CSS,” Dr. Ramiro said.

Going forward, Dr. Ramiro plans to continue monitoring patients who experienced CSS to assess their outcome post-COVID-19 infection. “We want to focus on cardiorespiratory, functional, and quality of life outcomes,” she said. “We will also compare the outcomes between patients that have received immunosuppression with those that haven’t.”
 

‘Quite interesting’ results

“We desperately need better evidence to guide the management of patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” Nihar R. Desai, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview.

“These data from the Netherlands are quite interesting and provide another signal to support the use of corticosteroids, with tocilizumab if needed, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 to improve outcomes,” added Dr. Desai, associate professor of medicine and investigator at the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“While these data are not randomized and have a relatively small sample size, we had recently seen the results of the RECOVERY trial, a UK-based randomized trial demonstrating the benefit of steroids in COVID-19,” he said.

“Taken together, these studies seem to suggest that there is a benefit with steroid therapy.” Further validation of these results is warranted, he added.
“While not a randomized clinical trial, and thus susceptible to unmeasured bias, the study adds to mounting evidence that supports targeting the excessive inflammation found in some patients with COVID-19,” Jared Radbel, MD, a pulmonologist, critical care specialist, and assistant professor of medicine at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., said in an interview.

Dr. Radbel added that he is part of a multicenter group that has submitted a manuscript examining outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab.

Dr. Ramiro, Dr. Desai, and Dr. Radbel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

COVID-19 can mean weeks’ long illness, even in young adults and those without chronic conditions who have mild disease and are treated in outpatient settings, according to survey results in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mark W. Tenforde, MD, PhD, for the CDC-COVID-19 Response Team, and colleagues conducted a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers found that 35% had not returned to their usual state of wellness when they were interviewed 2-3 weeks after testing.

Among the 270 of 274 people interviewed for whom there were data on return to health, 175 (65%) reported that they had returned to baseline health an average of 7 days from the date of testing.

Among the 274 symptomatic outpatients, the median number of symptoms was seven. Fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

Prolonged illness is well described in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, especially among the older adult population, but little is known about other groups.

The proportion who had not returned to health differed by age: 26% of interviewees aged 18-34 years, 32% of those aged 35-49 years, and 47% of those at least 50 years old reported not having returned to their usual health (P = .010) within 14-21 days after receiving positive test results.

Among respondents aged 18-34 years who had no chronic medical condition, 19% (9 of 48) reported not having returned to their usual state of health during that time.

Public health messaging targeting younger adults, a group who might not be expected to be sick for weeks with mild disease, is particularly important, the authors wrote.

Kyle Annen, DO, medical director of transfusion services and patient blood management at Children’s Hospital Colorado and assistant professor of pathology at the University of Colorado, Denver, said in an interview that an important message is that delayed recovery (symptoms of fatigue, cough, and shortness of breath) was evident in nearly a quarter of 18- to 34-year-olds and in a third of 35- to 49-year-olds who were not sick enough to require hospitalization.

“This should impact the perception of this being a mild illness in the young adult population and encourage them to comply with recommendations of social distancing, masking, and hand washing,” she said.

Recovery time of more than 2 weeks will affect work and school performance, especially prolonged fatigue, she noted. This was one of the prominent symptoms that were reported to be slow to dissipate.

“I think the most interesting point in this study is that of underlying conditions; psychiatric conditions were significantly correlated with prolonged recovery. I don’t think that many people think of depression and anxiety as an underlying medical condition in regards to COVID-19 risk. This could potentially have an impact, as depression and anxiety rates will likely increase as COVID-19 continues,” she said.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, said in an interview that it is “important to realize that the spectrum of disease with COVID is wide, including mild disease, severe disease, and prolonged disease. This report helps us understand some of the risk factors for those with prolonged symptoms and may allow us to refine even more clearly how we prioritize treatment and vaccine administration, once available.

“It also highlights the challenge of dealing with this virus. Not only do the symptoms vary widely, but so do the incubation period, the duration of symptoms, and the residual symptoms that sometimes occur. Clearly, there is much we still need to understand about this virus,” he said.

The interviews were conducted from April 15 to June 25 with a random sample of adults at least 18 years old who had received a first positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient visit at one of 14 US academic healthcare systems in 13 states.
 

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

COVID-19 can mean weeks’ long illness, even in young adults and those without chronic conditions who have mild disease and are treated in outpatient settings, according to survey results in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mark W. Tenforde, MD, PhD, for the CDC-COVID-19 Response Team, and colleagues conducted a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers found that 35% had not returned to their usual state of wellness when they were interviewed 2-3 weeks after testing.

Among the 270 of 274 people interviewed for whom there were data on return to health, 175 (65%) reported that they had returned to baseline health an average of 7 days from the date of testing.

Among the 274 symptomatic outpatients, the median number of symptoms was seven. Fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

Prolonged illness is well described in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, especially among the older adult population, but little is known about other groups.

The proportion who had not returned to health differed by age: 26% of interviewees aged 18-34 years, 32% of those aged 35-49 years, and 47% of those at least 50 years old reported not having returned to their usual health (P = .010) within 14-21 days after receiving positive test results.

Among respondents aged 18-34 years who had no chronic medical condition, 19% (9 of 48) reported not having returned to their usual state of health during that time.

Public health messaging targeting younger adults, a group who might not be expected to be sick for weeks with mild disease, is particularly important, the authors wrote.

Kyle Annen, DO, medical director of transfusion services and patient blood management at Children’s Hospital Colorado and assistant professor of pathology at the University of Colorado, Denver, said in an interview that an important message is that delayed recovery (symptoms of fatigue, cough, and shortness of breath) was evident in nearly a quarter of 18- to 34-year-olds and in a third of 35- to 49-year-olds who were not sick enough to require hospitalization.

“This should impact the perception of this being a mild illness in the young adult population and encourage them to comply with recommendations of social distancing, masking, and hand washing,” she said.

Recovery time of more than 2 weeks will affect work and school performance, especially prolonged fatigue, she noted. This was one of the prominent symptoms that were reported to be slow to dissipate.

“I think the most interesting point in this study is that of underlying conditions; psychiatric conditions were significantly correlated with prolonged recovery. I don’t think that many people think of depression and anxiety as an underlying medical condition in regards to COVID-19 risk. This could potentially have an impact, as depression and anxiety rates will likely increase as COVID-19 continues,” she said.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, said in an interview that it is “important to realize that the spectrum of disease with COVID is wide, including mild disease, severe disease, and prolonged disease. This report helps us understand some of the risk factors for those with prolonged symptoms and may allow us to refine even more clearly how we prioritize treatment and vaccine administration, once available.

“It also highlights the challenge of dealing with this virus. Not only do the symptoms vary widely, but so do the incubation period, the duration of symptoms, and the residual symptoms that sometimes occur. Clearly, there is much we still need to understand about this virus,” he said.

The interviews were conducted from April 15 to June 25 with a random sample of adults at least 18 years old who had received a first positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient visit at one of 14 US academic healthcare systems in 13 states.
 

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

COVID-19 can mean weeks’ long illness, even in young adults and those without chronic conditions who have mild disease and are treated in outpatient settings, according to survey results in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mark W. Tenforde, MD, PhD, for the CDC-COVID-19 Response Team, and colleagues conducted a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers found that 35% had not returned to their usual state of wellness when they were interviewed 2-3 weeks after testing.

Among the 270 of 274 people interviewed for whom there were data on return to health, 175 (65%) reported that they had returned to baseline health an average of 7 days from the date of testing.

Among the 274 symptomatic outpatients, the median number of symptoms was seven. Fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

Prolonged illness is well described in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, especially among the older adult population, but little is known about other groups.

The proportion who had not returned to health differed by age: 26% of interviewees aged 18-34 years, 32% of those aged 35-49 years, and 47% of those at least 50 years old reported not having returned to their usual health (P = .010) within 14-21 days after receiving positive test results.

Among respondents aged 18-34 years who had no chronic medical condition, 19% (9 of 48) reported not having returned to their usual state of health during that time.

Public health messaging targeting younger adults, a group who might not be expected to be sick for weeks with mild disease, is particularly important, the authors wrote.

Kyle Annen, DO, medical director of transfusion services and patient blood management at Children’s Hospital Colorado and assistant professor of pathology at the University of Colorado, Denver, said in an interview that an important message is that delayed recovery (symptoms of fatigue, cough, and shortness of breath) was evident in nearly a quarter of 18- to 34-year-olds and in a third of 35- to 49-year-olds who were not sick enough to require hospitalization.

“This should impact the perception of this being a mild illness in the young adult population and encourage them to comply with recommendations of social distancing, masking, and hand washing,” she said.

Recovery time of more than 2 weeks will affect work and school performance, especially prolonged fatigue, she noted. This was one of the prominent symptoms that were reported to be slow to dissipate.

“I think the most interesting point in this study is that of underlying conditions; psychiatric conditions were significantly correlated with prolonged recovery. I don’t think that many people think of depression and anxiety as an underlying medical condition in regards to COVID-19 risk. This could potentially have an impact, as depression and anxiety rates will likely increase as COVID-19 continues,” she said.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, said in an interview that it is “important to realize that the spectrum of disease with COVID is wide, including mild disease, severe disease, and prolonged disease. This report helps us understand some of the risk factors for those with prolonged symptoms and may allow us to refine even more clearly how we prioritize treatment and vaccine administration, once available.

“It also highlights the challenge of dealing with this virus. Not only do the symptoms vary widely, but so do the incubation period, the duration of symptoms, and the residual symptoms that sometimes occur. Clearly, there is much we still need to understand about this virus,” he said.

The interviews were conducted from April 15 to June 25 with a random sample of adults at least 18 years old who had received a first positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient visit at one of 14 US academic healthcare systems in 13 states.
 

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