Federal Practitioner

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

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

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

April 4:

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

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

April 7:

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

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

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

April 9:

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

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

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

April 15:

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

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

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

April 21:

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

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

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

April 28:

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

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

May 4:

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

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

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

Postscript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 4:

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

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

April 7:

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

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

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

April 9:

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

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

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

April 15:

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

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

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

April 21:

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

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

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

April 28:

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

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

May 4:

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

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

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

Postscript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 4:

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

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

April 7:

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

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

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

April 9:

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

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

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

April 15:

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

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

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

April 21:

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

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

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

April 28:

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

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

May 4:

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

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

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

Postscript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

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

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

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

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

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

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

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

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

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

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

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

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

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

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

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

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

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

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

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

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

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

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

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

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

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

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

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

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

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

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

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

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

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

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

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

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

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

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

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

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

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

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

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

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

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

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

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

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

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

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic Still Number One

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

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

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

2020–2021 Best Hospitals Honor Roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

2. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

3. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

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

4. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

8. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

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

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

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

12. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

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

14. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City

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

16. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix

17. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

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

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

20. Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas

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

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

Top Five for Cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

 

Top Five for Cardiology and Heart Surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Ohio

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

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

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

 

Top Five for Orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York City

5. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

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

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

The full report on hospital ranking is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A secondary analysis of a major study of polypill therapy for hypertension found that patients who don’t reach blood pressure targets are less likely to have their medications adjusted if they’re on fixed-dose combination therapy.

However, hypertension patients on low-dose, triple-pill combination therapy are more likely to achieve blood pressure control than are those on usual care.

The secondary analysis of Triple Pill vs. Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) was published online in JAMA Cardiology (2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739). The trial randomized 700 patients with hypertension in Sri Lanka to triple-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy or usual care during February 2016–May 2017, with follow-up ending in October 2017.

A greater proportion of FDC patients reached target BP by the end of the study compared with usual care, 70% vs. 55%. However, the study found that therapeutic inertia – the failure to intensify therapy in nonresponsive patients – was more common in the FDC group at 6- and 12-week follow-up: 87% vs. 64% and 90% vs. 65%, respectively; both differences were significant different at P < .001).

The once-daily FDC pill contained telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg.

“Using a triple low-dose combination blood-pressure pill reduced the need to uptitrate BP therapy as more patients are at target, but doctors were less likely to uptitrate with triple-pill therapy when it was needed,” lead author Nelson Wang, MD, a research fellow at the George Institute for Global Health in suburban Sydney, said in an interview.

“Overall, there were fewer treatment inertia episodes in the triple-pill group than in the usual care group, but this was driven by the fact that fewer triple-pill patients needed uptitration when coming to their follow-up visits,” Dr. Wang added.

The analysis found that clinicians who prescribed triple-pill FDC used 23 unique drug treatment regimens per 100 treated patients compared with 54 different regiments with usual care (P < .001). “There was a large simplification in care,” Dr. Wang said of the FDC approach.

Dr. Wang and colleagues called for greater efforts to address therapeutic inertia, particularly with FDC therapies, and suggested potential strategies consisting of patient education, incentives for appropriate treatment adjustments, and feedback mechanisms and reminders for physicians.

“There may also be a need for more dosage options with the FDC triple pill to allow physicians to intensify therapy without fear of overtreatment and adverse drug effects,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2693), Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, associate professor of cardiology at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., noted that initiating treatment with FDC therapy doesn’t preclude a more personalized approach for patients who don’t achieve their BP target. “The real choice now is the choice of initial treatment,” she wrote, adding that future treatment guidelines should consider extending an FDC-first approach to patients with less severe levels of hypertension.

“The study showed there’s room for a both a population-based fixed-drug combination approach and a personalized approach to how we think about hypertension management with fixed-dose therapy,” she said in an interview. “It’s not a one-and-done situation.”

Dr. Wang has no financial relationships to disclose. Study coauthors received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Navar has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: Wang N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.

A secondary analysis of a major study of polypill therapy for hypertension found that patients who don’t reach blood pressure targets are less likely to have their medications adjusted if they’re on fixed-dose combination therapy.

However, hypertension patients on low-dose, triple-pill combination therapy are more likely to achieve blood pressure control than are those on usual care.

The secondary analysis of Triple Pill vs. Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) was published online in JAMA Cardiology (2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739). The trial randomized 700 patients with hypertension in Sri Lanka to triple-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy or usual care during February 2016–May 2017, with follow-up ending in October 2017.

A greater proportion of FDC patients reached target BP by the end of the study compared with usual care, 70% vs. 55%. However, the study found that therapeutic inertia – the failure to intensify therapy in nonresponsive patients – was more common in the FDC group at 6- and 12-week follow-up: 87% vs. 64% and 90% vs. 65%, respectively; both differences were significant different at P < .001).

The once-daily FDC pill contained telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg.

“Using a triple low-dose combination blood-pressure pill reduced the need to uptitrate BP therapy as more patients are at target, but doctors were less likely to uptitrate with triple-pill therapy when it was needed,” lead author Nelson Wang, MD, a research fellow at the George Institute for Global Health in suburban Sydney, said in an interview.

“Overall, there were fewer treatment inertia episodes in the triple-pill group than in the usual care group, but this was driven by the fact that fewer triple-pill patients needed uptitration when coming to their follow-up visits,” Dr. Wang added.

The analysis found that clinicians who prescribed triple-pill FDC used 23 unique drug treatment regimens per 100 treated patients compared with 54 different regiments with usual care (P < .001). “There was a large simplification in care,” Dr. Wang said of the FDC approach.

Dr. Wang and colleagues called for greater efforts to address therapeutic inertia, particularly with FDC therapies, and suggested potential strategies consisting of patient education, incentives for appropriate treatment adjustments, and feedback mechanisms and reminders for physicians.

“There may also be a need for more dosage options with the FDC triple pill to allow physicians to intensify therapy without fear of overtreatment and adverse drug effects,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2693), Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, associate professor of cardiology at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., noted that initiating treatment with FDC therapy doesn’t preclude a more personalized approach for patients who don’t achieve their BP target. “The real choice now is the choice of initial treatment,” she wrote, adding that future treatment guidelines should consider extending an FDC-first approach to patients with less severe levels of hypertension.

“The study showed there’s room for a both a population-based fixed-drug combination approach and a personalized approach to how we think about hypertension management with fixed-dose therapy,” she said in an interview. “It’s not a one-and-done situation.”

Dr. Wang has no financial relationships to disclose. Study coauthors received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Navar has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: Wang N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.

A secondary analysis of a major study of polypill therapy for hypertension found that patients who don’t reach blood pressure targets are less likely to have their medications adjusted if they’re on fixed-dose combination therapy.

However, hypertension patients on low-dose, triple-pill combination therapy are more likely to achieve blood pressure control than are those on usual care.

The secondary analysis of Triple Pill vs. Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) was published online in JAMA Cardiology (2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739). The trial randomized 700 patients with hypertension in Sri Lanka to triple-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy or usual care during February 2016–May 2017, with follow-up ending in October 2017.

A greater proportion of FDC patients reached target BP by the end of the study compared with usual care, 70% vs. 55%. However, the study found that therapeutic inertia – the failure to intensify therapy in nonresponsive patients – was more common in the FDC group at 6- and 12-week follow-up: 87% vs. 64% and 90% vs. 65%, respectively; both differences were significant different at P < .001).

The once-daily FDC pill contained telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg.

“Using a triple low-dose combination blood-pressure pill reduced the need to uptitrate BP therapy as more patients are at target, but doctors were less likely to uptitrate with triple-pill therapy when it was needed,” lead author Nelson Wang, MD, a research fellow at the George Institute for Global Health in suburban Sydney, said in an interview.

“Overall, there were fewer treatment inertia episodes in the triple-pill group than in the usual care group, but this was driven by the fact that fewer triple-pill patients needed uptitration when coming to their follow-up visits,” Dr. Wang added.

The analysis found that clinicians who prescribed triple-pill FDC used 23 unique drug treatment regimens per 100 treated patients compared with 54 different regiments with usual care (P < .001). “There was a large simplification in care,” Dr. Wang said of the FDC approach.

Dr. Wang and colleagues called for greater efforts to address therapeutic inertia, particularly with FDC therapies, and suggested potential strategies consisting of patient education, incentives for appropriate treatment adjustments, and feedback mechanisms and reminders for physicians.

“There may also be a need for more dosage options with the FDC triple pill to allow physicians to intensify therapy without fear of overtreatment and adverse drug effects,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2693), Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, associate professor of cardiology at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., noted that initiating treatment with FDC therapy doesn’t preclude a more personalized approach for patients who don’t achieve their BP target. “The real choice now is the choice of initial treatment,” she wrote, adding that future treatment guidelines should consider extending an FDC-first approach to patients with less severe levels of hypertension.

“The study showed there’s room for a both a population-based fixed-drug combination approach and a personalized approach to how we think about hypertension management with fixed-dose therapy,” she said in an interview. “It’s not a one-and-done situation.”

Dr. Wang has no financial relationships to disclose. Study coauthors received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Navar has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: Wang N et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Aja Koska/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Aja Koska/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Aja Koska/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

Irina Shatilova/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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