Federal Practitioner

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

For the first 10 months of Christine’s gender transition, a progressive LGBT health clinic in Boston made getting on hormones easy. But after a year or so on estrogen and a testosterone-blocker, she found herself in financial trouble. She had just recently moved to the city, where she was unable to find a job, and her savings were starting to wear thin.

Finding employment as a transgender person, she says, was overwhelmingly difficult: “I was turned down for more jobs than I can count — 20 or 40 different positions in a couple of months.” She would land an interview, then wouldn’t hear back, she says, which she suspects happened because the company noticed she was “not like their other potential hires.”

Christine, a transgender woman, had been enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, for four months, and her copay for hormone therapy was only $5. But without a job, she found herself torn between food, rent, and medication. For a while, she juggled all three expenses with donations from friends. But after several months, she felt guilty about asking for help and stopped treatment. (Undark has agreed to use only Christine's chosen name because she said she feared both online and in-person harassment for sharing her story.)

At first, Christine didn’t mind being off hormones. She marched in political protests alongside older trans people who assured her that starting and stopping hormones was a normal part of the trans experience. But eventually, Christine felt her body reverting back to the way it had been before her transition; her chest flattened and her fat moved from her hips to her stomach. She stopped wearing dresses and makeup.

“I wasn't looking at myself in the mirror anymore,” she says. “I existed for 10 months, and then I was gone.”

People who are visibly transgender often have trouble finding a job. Nearly a third live in poverty. Many don’t have health insurance, and those who do may have a plan that doesn’t cover hormones. Although testosterone and estrogen only cost $5 to $30 a month for patients with an insurance plan (and typically less than $100 per month for the uninsured), doctors often require consistent therapy and blood work, which ratchets up the cost. Even when trans people have the money, finding doctors willing to treat them can prove impossible. Trans people are also likely to have had bad experiences with the health care system and want to avoid it altogether.

Without access to quality medical care, trans people around the world are seeking hormones from friends or through illegal online markets, even when the cost exceeds what it would through insurance. Although rare, others are resorting to self-surgery by cutting off their own penis and testicles or breasts.

Even with a doctor’s oversight, the health risks of transgender hormone therapy remain unclear, but without formal medical care, the do-it-yourself transition may be downright dangerous. To minimize these risks, some experts suggest health care reforms such as making it easier for primary care physicians to assess trans patients and prescribe hormones or creating specialized clinics where doctors prescribe hormones on demand.

But those solutions aren’t available to most people who are seeking DIY treatments right now. Many doctors aren’t even aware that DIY transitioning exists, although the few experts who are following the community aren’t surprised. Self-treatment is “the reality for most trans people in the world,” says Ayden Scheim, an epidemiologist focusing on transgender health at Drexel University who is trans himself.

While there isn’t a lot of other existing research on DIY hormone treatment, and some of it may be outdated, the available studies suggest it is fairly common and researchers may in fact be underestimating the prevalence of DIY hormone use because they miss people who avoid the medical system completely. In 2014, researchers in the U.K. found that at the time of their first gender clinic visit, 17 percent of transgender people were already taking hormones that they had bought online or from a friend. In Canada, a quarter of trans people on hormones had self-medicated, according to a 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health. And in a survey of trans people in Washington, D.C. in 2000, 58 percent said they used non-prescribed hormones.

People cite all sorts of reasons for ordering the drugs online or acquiring them by other means. In addition to distrust of doctors and a lack of insurance or access to health care, some simply don’t want to endure long waits for medications. That’s the case for Emma, a trans woman in college in the Netherlands, where it can take two to three years to receive a physician prescription. (Emma is only using her first name to avoid online harassment, which she says she’s experienced in the past.)

As for surgery, far fewer people turn to DIY versions compared to those who try hormones. A 2012 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reported that only 109 cases of self-castration or self-mutilation of the genitals appear in the scientific literature, and not all are related to gender identity. “But one is too many,” Scheim says. “No one should be in a position where they feel like they need to do that.”

The individual cases reveal a practice that is dangerous and devastating. In Hangzhou, China, a 30-year-old transgender woman feared rejection from her family, so she hid her true gender, according to a 2019 Amnesty International report. She also tried to transition in secret. At first, the woman tried putting ice on her genitals to stop them from functioning. When that didn’t work, she booked an appointment with a black-market surgeon, but the doctor was arrested before her session. She attempted surgery on herself, the report says, and after losing a profuse amount of blood, hailed a taxi to the emergency room. There, she asked the doctor to tell her family she had been in an accident.

When it comes to self-surgery, the dangers of DIY transitioning are obvious. The dangers of DIY hormones are more far-ranging, from “not ideal to serious,” Scheim says. Some DIY users take a more-is-better approach, but taking too much testosterone too quickly can fry the vocal cords. Even buying hormones from an online pharmacy is risky. In 2010, more than half of all treatments from illicit websites — not only of hormones, but of any drug — were counterfeit, according to a bulletin from the World Health Organization.

Still, Charley isn’t worried about the legitimacy of the drugs he’s taking. The packaging his estrogen comes in matches what he would get from a pharmacy with a doctor’s prescription, he says. He’s also unconcerned about the side effects. “I just did a metric century” — a 100-kilometer bike ride — “in under four hours and walked away from it feeling great. I’m healthy,” he says. “So, yeah, there might be a few side effects. But I know where the local hospital is.”

Yet waiting to see if a seemingly minor side effect leads to a health emergency may mean a patient gets help too late. “I don’t want to say that the risks are incredibly high and there is a high mortality,” Metastasio says. “I am saying, though, that this is a procedure best to be monitored.” Metastasio and others recommend seeing a doctor regularly to catch any health issues that arise as quickly as possible.

But even when doctors prescribe the drugs, the risks are unclear because of a lack of research on trans health, says Scheim: “There’s so much we don’t know about hormone use.”

Researchers do know a little bit, though. Even when a doctor weighs in on the proper dosages, there is an increased risk of heart attack. Taking testosterone increases the chances of developing acne, headaches and migraines, and anger and irritability, according to the Trans Care Project, a program of the Transcend Transgender Support and Education Society and Vancouver Coastal Health’s Transgender Health Program in Canada. Testosterone also increases the risk of having abnormally high levels of red blood cells, or polycythemia, which thickens the blood and can lead to clotting. Meanwhile, studies suggest estrogen can up the risk for breast cancer, stroke, blood clots, gallstones, and a range of heart issues. And the most common testosterone-blocker, spironolactone, can cause dehydration and weaken the kidneys.

All of these risks make it especially important for trans people to have the support of a medical provider, Metastasio says. Specialists are in short supply, but general practitioners and family doctors should be able to fill the gap. After all, they already sign off on the hormone medications for cisgender people for birth control and conditions such as menopause and male pattern baldness — which come with similar side effects and warnings as when trans people use them.

Some doctors have already realized the connection. “People can increasingly get hormone therapy from their pre-existing family doctor,” Scheim says, “which is really ideal because people should be able to have a sort of continuity of health care.”

Zil Goldstein, associate medical director for transgender and gender non-binary health at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York City, would like to see more of this. Treating gender dysphoria, she says, should be just like treating a patient for any other condition. “It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to come into a primary care provider’s office with diabetes” and for the doctor to say “‘I can't actually treat you. Please leave,’” she says. Primary care providers need to see transgender care, she adds, “as a regular part of their practice.”

Another way to increase access to hormones is through informed consent, a system which received a green light from the newest WPATH guidelines. That’s how Christine received her hormones from Fenway Health before she moved from Boston to Cape Cod. Under informed consent, if someone has a blood test to assess personal health risks of treatment, they can receive a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, sign off on knowing the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, and get a prescription — all in one day.

And Jaime Lynn Gilmour, a trans woman using the full name she chose to match her gender identity, turned to informed consent after struggling to find DIY hormones. In 2017, Jaime realized she was trans while serving in the military, and says she felt she had to keep her gender a secret. When her service ended, she was ready to start taking hormones right away. So she tried to find them online, but her order wouldn’t go through on three different websites. Instead, she visited a Planned Parenthood clinic. After blood work and a few questions, she walked out with three months of estrogen and spironolactone.

But Goldstein says even informed consent doesn’t go far enough: “If I have someone who's diabetic, I don't make them sign a document eliciting their informed consent before starting insulin.”

For trans people, hormone treatments “are life-saving therapies,” Goldstein adds, “and we shouldn’t delay or stigmatize.”

For now Christine still lives with her parents in Cape Cod. She’s also still off hormones. But she found a job. After she stashes a bit more cash in the bank, she plans to move closer to Boston and find a physician.

Despite the positive shifts in her life, it’s been a difficult few months. After moving to Cape Cod, Christine lost most of her social life and support system — particularly since her parents don’t understand or accept her gender identity. Though she has reconnected with a few friends in the past several weeks, she says she’s in a tough place emotionally. In public, she typically dresses and styles herself to look more masculine to avoid rude stares, and she is experiencing self-hatred that she fears won’t go away when she restarts treatment. Transitioning again isn’t going to be easy, as she explained to Undark in a private message on Facebook: “I've been beaten down enough that now I don't wanna get back up most of the time.”

Even worse is the fear that she might not be able to restart treatment at all. Earlier this year, Christine suffered two health emergencies within the span of a week, in which she says her blood pressure spiked, potentially causing organ damage. Christine has had one similar episode in the past and her family has a history of heart issues.

Christine may not be able to get back on estrogen despite the hard work she’s done to be able to afford it, she says, since it can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Because she has so far resisted trying DIY treatments again, she may have saved herself from additional health problems.

But Christine doesn’t see it that way. “Even if it was unsafe, even if I risked health concerns making myself a guinea pig, I wish I followed through,” she wrote. “Being off hormones is hell. And now that I face potentially never taking them again, I wish I had.”

Tara Santora is a science journalist based out of Denver. They have written for Psychology Today, Live Science, Fatherly, Audubon, and more.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

For the first 10 months of Christine’s gender transition, a progressive LGBT health clinic in Boston made getting on hormones easy. But after a year or so on estrogen and a testosterone-blocker, she found herself in financial trouble. She had just recently moved to the city, where she was unable to find a job, and her savings were starting to wear thin.

Finding employment as a transgender person, she says, was overwhelmingly difficult: “I was turned down for more jobs than I can count — 20 or 40 different positions in a couple of months.” She would land an interview, then wouldn’t hear back, she says, which she suspects happened because the company noticed she was “not like their other potential hires.”

Christine, a transgender woman, had been enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, for four months, and her copay for hormone therapy was only $5. But without a job, she found herself torn between food, rent, and medication. For a while, she juggled all three expenses with donations from friends. But after several months, she felt guilty about asking for help and stopped treatment. (Undark has agreed to use only Christine's chosen name because she said she feared both online and in-person harassment for sharing her story.)

At first, Christine didn’t mind being off hormones. She marched in political protests alongside older trans people who assured her that starting and stopping hormones was a normal part of the trans experience. But eventually, Christine felt her body reverting back to the way it had been before her transition; her chest flattened and her fat moved from her hips to her stomach. She stopped wearing dresses and makeup.

“I wasn't looking at myself in the mirror anymore,” she says. “I existed for 10 months, and then I was gone.”

People who are visibly transgender often have trouble finding a job. Nearly a third live in poverty. Many don’t have health insurance, and those who do may have a plan that doesn’t cover hormones. Although testosterone and estrogen only cost $5 to $30 a month for patients with an insurance plan (and typically less than $100 per month for the uninsured), doctors often require consistent therapy and blood work, which ratchets up the cost. Even when trans people have the money, finding doctors willing to treat them can prove impossible. Trans people are also likely to have had bad experiences with the health care system and want to avoid it altogether.

Without access to quality medical care, trans people around the world are seeking hormones from friends or through illegal online markets, even when the cost exceeds what it would through insurance. Although rare, others are resorting to self-surgery by cutting off their own penis and testicles or breasts.

Even with a doctor’s oversight, the health risks of transgender hormone therapy remain unclear, but without formal medical care, the do-it-yourself transition may be downright dangerous. To minimize these risks, some experts suggest health care reforms such as making it easier for primary care physicians to assess trans patients and prescribe hormones or creating specialized clinics where doctors prescribe hormones on demand.

But those solutions aren’t available to most people who are seeking DIY treatments right now. Many doctors aren’t even aware that DIY transitioning exists, although the few experts who are following the community aren’t surprised. Self-treatment is “the reality for most trans people in the world,” says Ayden Scheim, an epidemiologist focusing on transgender health at Drexel University who is trans himself.

While there isn’t a lot of other existing research on DIY hormone treatment, and some of it may be outdated, the available studies suggest it is fairly common and researchers may in fact be underestimating the prevalence of DIY hormone use because they miss people who avoid the medical system completely. In 2014, researchers in the U.K. found that at the time of their first gender clinic visit, 17 percent of transgender people were already taking hormones that they had bought online or from a friend. In Canada, a quarter of trans people on hormones had self-medicated, according to a 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health. And in a survey of trans people in Washington, D.C. in 2000, 58 percent said they used non-prescribed hormones.

People cite all sorts of reasons for ordering the drugs online or acquiring them by other means. In addition to distrust of doctors and a lack of insurance or access to health care, some simply don’t want to endure long waits for medications. That’s the case for Emma, a trans woman in college in the Netherlands, where it can take two to three years to receive a physician prescription. (Emma is only using her first name to avoid online harassment, which she says she’s experienced in the past.)

As for surgery, far fewer people turn to DIY versions compared to those who try hormones. A 2012 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reported that only 109 cases of self-castration or self-mutilation of the genitals appear in the scientific literature, and not all are related to gender identity. “But one is too many,” Scheim says. “No one should be in a position where they feel like they need to do that.”

The individual cases reveal a practice that is dangerous and devastating. In Hangzhou, China, a 30-year-old transgender woman feared rejection from her family, so she hid her true gender, according to a 2019 Amnesty International report. She also tried to transition in secret. At first, the woman tried putting ice on her genitals to stop them from functioning. When that didn’t work, she booked an appointment with a black-market surgeon, but the doctor was arrested before her session. She attempted surgery on herself, the report says, and after losing a profuse amount of blood, hailed a taxi to the emergency room. There, she asked the doctor to tell her family she had been in an accident.

When it comes to self-surgery, the dangers of DIY transitioning are obvious. The dangers of DIY hormones are more far-ranging, from “not ideal to serious,” Scheim says. Some DIY users take a more-is-better approach, but taking too much testosterone too quickly can fry the vocal cords. Even buying hormones from an online pharmacy is risky. In 2010, more than half of all treatments from illicit websites — not only of hormones, but of any drug — were counterfeit, according to a bulletin from the World Health Organization.

Still, Charley isn’t worried about the legitimacy of the drugs he’s taking. The packaging his estrogen comes in matches what he would get from a pharmacy with a doctor’s prescription, he says. He’s also unconcerned about the side effects. “I just did a metric century” — a 100-kilometer bike ride — “in under four hours and walked away from it feeling great. I’m healthy,” he says. “So, yeah, there might be a few side effects. But I know where the local hospital is.”

Yet waiting to see if a seemingly minor side effect leads to a health emergency may mean a patient gets help too late. “I don’t want to say that the risks are incredibly high and there is a high mortality,” Metastasio says. “I am saying, though, that this is a procedure best to be monitored.” Metastasio and others recommend seeing a doctor regularly to catch any health issues that arise as quickly as possible.

But even when doctors prescribe the drugs, the risks are unclear because of a lack of research on trans health, says Scheim: “There’s so much we don’t know about hormone use.”

Researchers do know a little bit, though. Even when a doctor weighs in on the proper dosages, there is an increased risk of heart attack. Taking testosterone increases the chances of developing acne, headaches and migraines, and anger and irritability, according to the Trans Care Project, a program of the Transcend Transgender Support and Education Society and Vancouver Coastal Health’s Transgender Health Program in Canada. Testosterone also increases the risk of having abnormally high levels of red blood cells, or polycythemia, which thickens the blood and can lead to clotting. Meanwhile, studies suggest estrogen can up the risk for breast cancer, stroke, blood clots, gallstones, and a range of heart issues. And the most common testosterone-blocker, spironolactone, can cause dehydration and weaken the kidneys.

All of these risks make it especially important for trans people to have the support of a medical provider, Metastasio says. Specialists are in short supply, but general practitioners and family doctors should be able to fill the gap. After all, they already sign off on the hormone medications for cisgender people for birth control and conditions such as menopause and male pattern baldness — which come with similar side effects and warnings as when trans people use them.

Some doctors have already realized the connection. “People can increasingly get hormone therapy from their pre-existing family doctor,” Scheim says, “which is really ideal because people should be able to have a sort of continuity of health care.”

Zil Goldstein, associate medical director for transgender and gender non-binary health at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York City, would like to see more of this. Treating gender dysphoria, she says, should be just like treating a patient for any other condition. “It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to come into a primary care provider’s office with diabetes” and for the doctor to say “‘I can't actually treat you. Please leave,’” she says. Primary care providers need to see transgender care, she adds, “as a regular part of their practice.”

Another way to increase access to hormones is through informed consent, a system which received a green light from the newest WPATH guidelines. That’s how Christine received her hormones from Fenway Health before she moved from Boston to Cape Cod. Under informed consent, if someone has a blood test to assess personal health risks of treatment, they can receive a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, sign off on knowing the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, and get a prescription — all in one day.

And Jaime Lynn Gilmour, a trans woman using the full name she chose to match her gender identity, turned to informed consent after struggling to find DIY hormones. In 2017, Jaime realized she was trans while serving in the military, and says she felt she had to keep her gender a secret. When her service ended, she was ready to start taking hormones right away. So she tried to find them online, but her order wouldn’t go through on three different websites. Instead, she visited a Planned Parenthood clinic. After blood work and a few questions, she walked out with three months of estrogen and spironolactone.

But Goldstein says even informed consent doesn’t go far enough: “If I have someone who's diabetic, I don't make them sign a document eliciting their informed consent before starting insulin.”

For trans people, hormone treatments “are life-saving therapies,” Goldstein adds, “and we shouldn’t delay or stigmatize.”

For now Christine still lives with her parents in Cape Cod. She’s also still off hormones. But she found a job. After she stashes a bit more cash in the bank, she plans to move closer to Boston and find a physician.

Despite the positive shifts in her life, it’s been a difficult few months. After moving to Cape Cod, Christine lost most of her social life and support system — particularly since her parents don’t understand or accept her gender identity. Though she has reconnected with a few friends in the past several weeks, she says she’s in a tough place emotionally. In public, she typically dresses and styles herself to look more masculine to avoid rude stares, and she is experiencing self-hatred that she fears won’t go away when she restarts treatment. Transitioning again isn’t going to be easy, as she explained to Undark in a private message on Facebook: “I've been beaten down enough that now I don't wanna get back up most of the time.”

Even worse is the fear that she might not be able to restart treatment at all. Earlier this year, Christine suffered two health emergencies within the span of a week, in which she says her blood pressure spiked, potentially causing organ damage. Christine has had one similar episode in the past and her family has a history of heart issues.

Christine may not be able to get back on estrogen despite the hard work she’s done to be able to afford it, she says, since it can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Because she has so far resisted trying DIY treatments again, she may have saved herself from additional health problems.

But Christine doesn’t see it that way. “Even if it was unsafe, even if I risked health concerns making myself a guinea pig, I wish I followed through,” she wrote. “Being off hormones is hell. And now that I face potentially never taking them again, I wish I had.”

Tara Santora is a science journalist based out of Denver. They have written for Psychology Today, Live Science, Fatherly, Audubon, and more.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

For the first 10 months of Christine’s gender transition, a progressive LGBT health clinic in Boston made getting on hormones easy. But after a year or so on estrogen and a testosterone-blocker, she found herself in financial trouble. She had just recently moved to the city, where she was unable to find a job, and her savings were starting to wear thin.

Finding employment as a transgender person, she says, was overwhelmingly difficult: “I was turned down for more jobs than I can count — 20 or 40 different positions in a couple of months.” She would land an interview, then wouldn’t hear back, she says, which she suspects happened because the company noticed she was “not like their other potential hires.”

Christine, a transgender woman, had been enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, for four months, and her copay for hormone therapy was only $5. But without a job, she found herself torn between food, rent, and medication. For a while, she juggled all three expenses with donations from friends. But after several months, she felt guilty about asking for help and stopped treatment. (Undark has agreed to use only Christine's chosen name because she said she feared both online and in-person harassment for sharing her story.)

At first, Christine didn’t mind being off hormones. She marched in political protests alongside older trans people who assured her that starting and stopping hormones was a normal part of the trans experience. But eventually, Christine felt her body reverting back to the way it had been before her transition; her chest flattened and her fat moved from her hips to her stomach. She stopped wearing dresses and makeup.

“I wasn't looking at myself in the mirror anymore,” she says. “I existed for 10 months, and then I was gone.”

People who are visibly transgender often have trouble finding a job. Nearly a third live in poverty. Many don’t have health insurance, and those who do may have a plan that doesn’t cover hormones. Although testosterone and estrogen only cost $5 to $30 a month for patients with an insurance plan (and typically less than $100 per month for the uninsured), doctors often require consistent therapy and blood work, which ratchets up the cost. Even when trans people have the money, finding doctors willing to treat them can prove impossible. Trans people are also likely to have had bad experiences with the health care system and want to avoid it altogether.

Without access to quality medical care, trans people around the world are seeking hormones from friends or through illegal online markets, even when the cost exceeds what it would through insurance. Although rare, others are resorting to self-surgery by cutting off their own penis and testicles or breasts.

Even with a doctor’s oversight, the health risks of transgender hormone therapy remain unclear, but without formal medical care, the do-it-yourself transition may be downright dangerous. To minimize these risks, some experts suggest health care reforms such as making it easier for primary care physicians to assess trans patients and prescribe hormones or creating specialized clinics where doctors prescribe hormones on demand.

But those solutions aren’t available to most people who are seeking DIY treatments right now. Many doctors aren’t even aware that DIY transitioning exists, although the few experts who are following the community aren’t surprised. Self-treatment is “the reality for most trans people in the world,” says Ayden Scheim, an epidemiologist focusing on transgender health at Drexel University who is trans himself.

While there isn’t a lot of other existing research on DIY hormone treatment, and some of it may be outdated, the available studies suggest it is fairly common and researchers may in fact be underestimating the prevalence of DIY hormone use because they miss people who avoid the medical system completely. In 2014, researchers in the U.K. found that at the time of their first gender clinic visit, 17 percent of transgender people were already taking hormones that they had bought online or from a friend. In Canada, a quarter of trans people on hormones had self-medicated, according to a 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health. And in a survey of trans people in Washington, D.C. in 2000, 58 percent said they used non-prescribed hormones.

People cite all sorts of reasons for ordering the drugs online or acquiring them by other means. In addition to distrust of doctors and a lack of insurance or access to health care, some simply don’t want to endure long waits for medications. That’s the case for Emma, a trans woman in college in the Netherlands, where it can take two to three years to receive a physician prescription. (Emma is only using her first name to avoid online harassment, which she says she’s experienced in the past.)

As for surgery, far fewer people turn to DIY versions compared to those who try hormones. A 2012 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reported that only 109 cases of self-castration or self-mutilation of the genitals appear in the scientific literature, and not all are related to gender identity. “But one is too many,” Scheim says. “No one should be in a position where they feel like they need to do that.”

The individual cases reveal a practice that is dangerous and devastating. In Hangzhou, China, a 30-year-old transgender woman feared rejection from her family, so she hid her true gender, according to a 2019 Amnesty International report. She also tried to transition in secret. At first, the woman tried putting ice on her genitals to stop them from functioning. When that didn’t work, she booked an appointment with a black-market surgeon, but the doctor was arrested before her session. She attempted surgery on herself, the report says, and after losing a profuse amount of blood, hailed a taxi to the emergency room. There, she asked the doctor to tell her family she had been in an accident.

When it comes to self-surgery, the dangers of DIY transitioning are obvious. The dangers of DIY hormones are more far-ranging, from “not ideal to serious,” Scheim says. Some DIY users take a more-is-better approach, but taking too much testosterone too quickly can fry the vocal cords. Even buying hormones from an online pharmacy is risky. In 2010, more than half of all treatments from illicit websites — not only of hormones, but of any drug — were counterfeit, according to a bulletin from the World Health Organization.

Still, Charley isn’t worried about the legitimacy of the drugs he’s taking. The packaging his estrogen comes in matches what he would get from a pharmacy with a doctor’s prescription, he says. He’s also unconcerned about the side effects. “I just did a metric century” — a 100-kilometer bike ride — “in under four hours and walked away from it feeling great. I’m healthy,” he says. “So, yeah, there might be a few side effects. But I know where the local hospital is.”

Yet waiting to see if a seemingly minor side effect leads to a health emergency may mean a patient gets help too late. “I don’t want to say that the risks are incredibly high and there is a high mortality,” Metastasio says. “I am saying, though, that this is a procedure best to be monitored.” Metastasio and others recommend seeing a doctor regularly to catch any health issues that arise as quickly as possible.

But even when doctors prescribe the drugs, the risks are unclear because of a lack of research on trans health, says Scheim: “There’s so much we don’t know about hormone use.”

Researchers do know a little bit, though. Even when a doctor weighs in on the proper dosages, there is an increased risk of heart attack. Taking testosterone increases the chances of developing acne, headaches and migraines, and anger and irritability, according to the Trans Care Project, a program of the Transcend Transgender Support and Education Society and Vancouver Coastal Health’s Transgender Health Program in Canada. Testosterone also increases the risk of having abnormally high levels of red blood cells, or polycythemia, which thickens the blood and can lead to clotting. Meanwhile, studies suggest estrogen can up the risk for breast cancer, stroke, blood clots, gallstones, and a range of heart issues. And the most common testosterone-blocker, spironolactone, can cause dehydration and weaken the kidneys.

All of these risks make it especially important for trans people to have the support of a medical provider, Metastasio says. Specialists are in short supply, but general practitioners and family doctors should be able to fill the gap. After all, they already sign off on the hormone medications for cisgender people for birth control and conditions such as menopause and male pattern baldness — which come with similar side effects and warnings as when trans people use them.

Some doctors have already realized the connection. “People can increasingly get hormone therapy from their pre-existing family doctor,” Scheim says, “which is really ideal because people should be able to have a sort of continuity of health care.”

Zil Goldstein, associate medical director for transgender and gender non-binary health at the Callen-Lorde Community Health Center in New York City, would like to see more of this. Treating gender dysphoria, she says, should be just like treating a patient for any other condition. “It wouldn't be acceptable for someone to come into a primary care provider’s office with diabetes” and for the doctor to say “‘I can't actually treat you. Please leave,’” she says. Primary care providers need to see transgender care, she adds, “as a regular part of their practice.”

Another way to increase access to hormones is through informed consent, a system which received a green light from the newest WPATH guidelines. That’s how Christine received her hormones from Fenway Health before she moved from Boston to Cape Cod. Under informed consent, if someone has a blood test to assess personal health risks of treatment, they can receive a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, sign off on knowing the risks and benefits of hormone therapy, and get a prescription — all in one day.

And Jaime Lynn Gilmour, a trans woman using the full name she chose to match her gender identity, turned to informed consent after struggling to find DIY hormones. In 2017, Jaime realized she was trans while serving in the military, and says she felt she had to keep her gender a secret. When her service ended, she was ready to start taking hormones right away. So she tried to find them online, but her order wouldn’t go through on three different websites. Instead, she visited a Planned Parenthood clinic. After blood work and a few questions, she walked out with three months of estrogen and spironolactone.

But Goldstein says even informed consent doesn’t go far enough: “If I have someone who's diabetic, I don't make them sign a document eliciting their informed consent before starting insulin.”

For trans people, hormone treatments “are life-saving therapies,” Goldstein adds, “and we shouldn’t delay or stigmatize.”

For now Christine still lives with her parents in Cape Cod. She’s also still off hormones. But she found a job. After she stashes a bit more cash in the bank, she plans to move closer to Boston and find a physician.

Despite the positive shifts in her life, it’s been a difficult few months. After moving to Cape Cod, Christine lost most of her social life and support system — particularly since her parents don’t understand or accept her gender identity. Though she has reconnected with a few friends in the past several weeks, she says she’s in a tough place emotionally. In public, she typically dresses and styles herself to look more masculine to avoid rude stares, and she is experiencing self-hatred that she fears won’t go away when she restarts treatment. Transitioning again isn’t going to be easy, as she explained to Undark in a private message on Facebook: “I've been beaten down enough that now I don't wanna get back up most of the time.”

Even worse is the fear that she might not be able to restart treatment at all. Earlier this year, Christine suffered two health emergencies within the span of a week, in which she says her blood pressure spiked, potentially causing organ damage. Christine has had one similar episode in the past and her family has a history of heart issues.

Christine may not be able to get back on estrogen despite the hard work she’s done to be able to afford it, she says, since it can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Because she has so far resisted trying DIY treatments again, she may have saved herself from additional health problems.

But Christine doesn’t see it that way. “Even if it was unsafe, even if I risked health concerns making myself a guinea pig, I wish I followed through,” she wrote. “Being off hormones is hell. And now that I face potentially never taking them again, I wish I had.”

Tara Santora is a science journalist based out of Denver. They have written for Psychology Today, Live Science, Fatherly, Audubon, and more.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Bariatric surgery may yield increases in muscle mass from baseline among older adults, findings from a small study suggest.

Although bariatric surgery can be used to treat obesity and related comorbidities in older adults, “here are concerns of excess loss of muscle mass after bariatric surgery, especially in elderly patients whose muscle tends to be less, compared to younger patients, at baseline,” wrote Moiz Dawood, MD, of Banner Gateway Medical Center, Gilbert, Ariz., and colleagues.

In a study presented in a poster at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education, the researchers reviewed data from 89 adults older than 65 years (74% women) who underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (87 patients) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (2 patients) between May 2015 and March 2017.

At baseline, the average total body weight was 251 pounds and the average muscle mass percent was 50%. At 12 months after surgery, the average weight of the patients decreased to 197 pounds and the percentage of muscle mass increased to 55% (P < .001 for both).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and retrospective design. However, the results support the benefits of bariatric surgery for older adults, not only with reductions in total body weight loss, but also increasing the total percentage of muscle mass, the researchers said.

The study is important in light of the ongoing discussion regarding the age limit for bariatric surgery, Dr. Dawood said in an interview. “Currently there is no upper age cutoff for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, and understanding the relationship between muscle mass and bariatric surgery would help in determining if there was a negative relationship,” he said.

“The results definitely point toward evidence that suggests that elderly patients do not lose muscle mass to a significant degree,” Dr. Dawood noted. “Muscle mass definitions and calculations also include variables such as weight and fat content. With the additional loss in weight after surgery, it was expected that the muscle mass composition would be affected,” he explained. “However, the results clearly show that even up to 1 year after surgery, older patients who lose weight do not lose significant weight from their muscle mass,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians, said Dr. Dawood, is “to understand that metabolic and bariatric surgery, when performed cohesively in a unified program that focuses on lifestyle and dietary changes, is the best way to achieve sustained weight loss.” He added, “this study indicates that physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery are not detrimental in the elderly population.”

Next steps for research include further studies in the elderly population to examine the physiologic changes that occur after weight loss surgery, said Dr. Dawood. “Being able to characterize the metabolic changes will help in answering the question of whether there is an upper age cut-off for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Women are much more likely than men to have asthma, and asthma rates among black women are higher than for other races/ethnicities, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among all women aged 18 years and older, 9.7% reported that they currently had asthma in 2017-2018, compared with 5.5% of men, based on age-adjusted data from the National Health Interview Survey.

The proportion of black, non-Hispanic women with asthma, however, was even higher, at 11.4%. White non-Hispanic women were next at 10.3%, followed by Hispanic (7.8%) and Asian (5.0%) women, the CDC reported June 26 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The same pattern held for men: 6.2% of black men had asthma in 2017-2018, compared with 5.9% of whites, 3.9% of Hispanics, and 3.3% of Asian men, the CDC said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MMWR. 2020 Jun 26;69(25):805.

Women are much more likely than men to have asthma, and asthma rates among black women are higher than for other races/ethnicities, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among all women aged 18 years and older, 9.7% reported that they currently had asthma in 2017-2018, compared with 5.5% of men, based on age-adjusted data from the National Health Interview Survey.

The proportion of black, non-Hispanic women with asthma, however, was even higher, at 11.4%. White non-Hispanic women were next at 10.3%, followed by Hispanic (7.8%) and Asian (5.0%) women, the CDC reported June 26 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The same pattern held for men: 6.2% of black men had asthma in 2017-2018, compared with 5.9% of whites, 3.9% of Hispanics, and 3.3% of Asian men, the CDC said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MMWR. 2020 Jun 26;69(25):805.

Women are much more likely than men to have asthma, and asthma rates among black women are higher than for other races/ethnicities, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among all women aged 18 years and older, 9.7% reported that they currently had asthma in 2017-2018, compared with 5.5% of men, based on age-adjusted data from the National Health Interview Survey.

The proportion of black, non-Hispanic women with asthma, however, was even higher, at 11.4%. White non-Hispanic women were next at 10.3%, followed by Hispanic (7.8%) and Asian (5.0%) women, the CDC reported June 26 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The same pattern held for men: 6.2% of black men had asthma in 2017-2018, compared with 5.9% of whites, 3.9% of Hispanics, and 3.3% of Asian men, the CDC said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MMWR. 2020 Jun 26;69(25):805.

Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.  

Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection. 

Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.

“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.

As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.

The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.

For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.

Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.

Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.

They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
 

ACOG responds

In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.

Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”

In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.

ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.

“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.  

Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection. 

Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.

“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.

As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.

The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.

For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.

Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.

Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.

They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
 

ACOG responds

In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.

Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”

In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.

ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.

“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.  

Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection. 

Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.

“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.

As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.

The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.

For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.

Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.

Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.

They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
 

ACOG responds

In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.

Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”

In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.

ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.

“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.