Federal Practitioner

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Given that Pride month is coinciding with so much upheaval in our community around racism and oppression, it is important to discuss the overlap in the experiences of both LGBTQ and people of color (POC).

The year 2020 will go down in history books. We will always remember the issues faced during this critical year. At least I hope so, because as we have seen, history repeats itself. How do these issues that we are currently facing relate to LGBTQ youth? The histories are linked. One cannot look at the history of LGBTQ rights without looking at other civil rights movements, particularly those for black people. The timing of these social movements often intertwined, both being inspired by and inspiring each other. For example, Bayard Rustin worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an organizer for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in addition to being a public advocate for gay rights later on in his life. Similarly, the Stonewall Uprising that is known by many to be one of the first acts of the gay liberation movement, prominently featured Marsha P. Johnson (a black, transgender, self-identified drag queen) and Sylvia Rivera (a Latina American transgender rights activist). As we reflect on these histories, it is important to think about the effect of minority stress and intersectionality and how this impacts LGBTQ-POC and their health disparities.

Minority stress shows that stigmatized minority groups face chronic stressors that ultimately lead to physical and emotional responses, thus affecting long-term health outcomes. One example of such stressors is microaggressions – brief interactions that one might not realize are discriminatory or hurtful, but to the person on the receiving end of such comments, they are harmful and they add up. A suspicious look from a store owner as one browses the aisles of a local convenience store, a comment about how one “doesn’t’ seem gay” or “doesn’t sound black” all are examples of microaggressions.

Overt discrimination, expectation of rejection, and hate crimes also contribute to minority stress. LGBTQ individuals often also have to hide their identity whereas POC might not be able to hide their identity. Experiencing constant bombardment of discrimination from the outside world can lead one to internalize these thoughts of homophobia, transphobia, or racism.

Minority stress becomes even more complicated when you apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality – overlapping identities that compound one’s minority stress. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people of color (LGBTQ-POC) are a classic example of intersecting identities. They may experience racism from the LGBT community or homophobia/transphobia from their own racial or ethnic community in addition to the discrimination they already face from the majority population for both identities. Some LGBTQ people of color may feel the need to choose between these two identities, forcing them to compartmentalize one aspect of their identity from the other. Imagine how stressful that must be! In addition, LGBTQ-POC are less likely to come out to family members.

Most of us are aware that health disparities exist, both for the LGBTQ community as well as for racial and ethnic minorities; couple these together and the effect can be additive, placing LGBTQ-POC at higher risk for adverse health outcomes. In the late 1990s, racial and ethnic minority men having sex with men made up 48% of all HIV infection cases, a number that is clearly disproportionate to their representation in our overall society. Given both LGBTQ and POC have issues accessing care, one can only imagine that this would make it hard to get diagnosed or treated regularly for these issues.

Transgender POC also are particularly vulnerable to health disparities. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey looked at the experiences of over 28,000 transgender people in the United States, but the survey also broke down the experiences for transgender people of color. Black transgender individuals were more likely than their black cisgender counterparts to experience unemployment (20% vs. 10%) and poverty (38% vs. 24%). They were more likely to experience homelessness compared with the overall transgender sample (42% vs. 30%) and more likely to have been sexually assaulted in their lives (53% vs. 47%). Understandably, 67% of black transgender respondents said they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable asking the police for help.

The findings were similar for Latinx transgender respondents: 21% were unemployed compared with the overall rate of unemployment for Latinx in the United States at 7%, and 43% were living in poverty compared with 18% of their cisgender peers.

Perhaps the most striking result among American Indian and Alaska Native respondents was that 57% had experienced homelessness – nearly twice the rate of the survey sample overall (30%). For the transgender Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents, 32% were living in poverty and 39% had experienced serious psychological distress in the month before completing the survey.

So please, check in on your patients, friends, and family that identify as both LGBTQ and POC. Imagine how scary this must be for LGBTQ youth of color. They can be targeted for both their race and their sexuality and/or gender identity.
 

Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

The skin microbiome is similar between the first few weeks of life and 3-4 years of age, then increases in richness and diversity through age 10, while the skin microbiome of the mothers of the children whose microbiome was analyzed remained relatively constant over the same time period.

Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute

The findings come from what is believed to be the longest longitudinal study specific to the skin microbiome of infants and mothers.

“Even at 10 years, the skin microbiome does not look like an adult skin microbiome, based on composition of the ecosystem,” lead author Kimberly A. Capone, PhD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “The diversity of the microbiome in children’s skin is distinct to that of an adult’s skin. We all have the same bacteria present, but in children it is distributed differently because the bacteria set themselves up based on the nutrients and topography that they find on the skin. Since infant skin is unique to infants, so too is their microbiome when we compare it to adults. It’s been fascinating to observe these children grow and mature, and follow the skin microbiome along this same period.”

During five time points over a period of 10 years, Dr. Capone and her colleagues at the Skillman, N.J.–based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Experience Center, a research and development site, used 16s rRNA gene sequencing to evaluate the skin microbiome on the forearms and foreheads of 30 mothers and their 31 children. The study participants had Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV and the mean age of mothers was 37 years. “We used 16s rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome analysis at the beginning, as that was what was available 10 years ago,” said Dr. Capone, head of the microbiome platform for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health. “Since then, we continue to use 16s for continuity, but also collected additional swabs for deeper analysis later.”

She and her colleagues often draw samples from the forearm in baby skin clinical studies, “as the arm is a good site to collect relevant data on the body overall,” she explained. “We chose the forearm and forehead specifically here so we can make same body site comparisons to adult sample data which we took from the mothers on the same areas of their body.” Time point 1 was 3 months to 1 year, time point 2 was 2-3 years, time point 3 was 5-6 years, time point 4 was 7-8 years, and time point 5 was 9-10 years.

The researchers found that the skin of infants during the first few weeks of life was similar at age 3 and 4 years. “From that second time point on, we see significant increases in richness and diversity, richness being presence or absence of various bacterial species, and diversity being the relative abundance of those species,” Dr. Capone said. “What you’re basically seeing is that there are new organisms, i.e., richness, coming into the microbiome. We start to detect new ones. Over time, the ecosystem is expanding. It’s evolving because it’s not yet set up.” The evolving skin microbiome on children was dominated by Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. In addition, children had higher levels of Streptococcus, Moraxella, Granulicatella, Gemella and Veillonella, compared with their adult mothers. Adult skin was colonized predominantly by Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

“The skin microbiome also increased in diversity over time on the forearm, but not face, of the mothers,” Dr. Capone said. “Previous studies have shown how stable the adult skin microbiome is, so it’s intriguing to see the changes that we saw on the mothers in this study.”

The increase in skin microbiome diversity observed in the children is likely due to a variety of factors, she continued, including inherent growth and development, dietary changes, as well as exposure to various environments and other people. “The fact remains that diversity is increasing over time, as the ecosystem evolves,” she said. “Eventually, the skin microbiome will become ‘adultlike’ in puberty, when lipid production increases. This drives increases in Cutibacterium acnes, particularly on the face.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small size and the fact that some of the original subjects did not return for microbiome analysis at later time points. “We need larger cohort studies, additional deeper sequence data, metabolomics and transcriptomics to better understand the function of the skin microbiome over these various ages,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer. Dr. Capone and her two coauthors are employees of the company.

[email protected]

The skin microbiome is similar between the first few weeks of life and 3-4 years of age, then increases in richness and diversity through age 10, while the skin microbiome of the mothers of the children whose microbiome was analyzed remained relatively constant over the same time period.

Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute

The findings come from what is believed to be the longest longitudinal study specific to the skin microbiome of infants and mothers.

“Even at 10 years, the skin microbiome does not look like an adult skin microbiome, based on composition of the ecosystem,” lead author Kimberly A. Capone, PhD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “The diversity of the microbiome in children’s skin is distinct to that of an adult’s skin. We all have the same bacteria present, but in children it is distributed differently because the bacteria set themselves up based on the nutrients and topography that they find on the skin. Since infant skin is unique to infants, so too is their microbiome when we compare it to adults. It’s been fascinating to observe these children grow and mature, and follow the skin microbiome along this same period.”

During five time points over a period of 10 years, Dr. Capone and her colleagues at the Skillman, N.J.–based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Experience Center, a research and development site, used 16s rRNA gene sequencing to evaluate the skin microbiome on the forearms and foreheads of 30 mothers and their 31 children. The study participants had Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV and the mean age of mothers was 37 years. “We used 16s rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome analysis at the beginning, as that was what was available 10 years ago,” said Dr. Capone, head of the microbiome platform for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health. “Since then, we continue to use 16s for continuity, but also collected additional swabs for deeper analysis later.”

She and her colleagues often draw samples from the forearm in baby skin clinical studies, “as the arm is a good site to collect relevant data on the body overall,” she explained. “We chose the forearm and forehead specifically here so we can make same body site comparisons to adult sample data which we took from the mothers on the same areas of their body.” Time point 1 was 3 months to 1 year, time point 2 was 2-3 years, time point 3 was 5-6 years, time point 4 was 7-8 years, and time point 5 was 9-10 years.

The researchers found that the skin of infants during the first few weeks of life was similar at age 3 and 4 years. “From that second time point on, we see significant increases in richness and diversity, richness being presence or absence of various bacterial species, and diversity being the relative abundance of those species,” Dr. Capone said. “What you’re basically seeing is that there are new organisms, i.e., richness, coming into the microbiome. We start to detect new ones. Over time, the ecosystem is expanding. It’s evolving because it’s not yet set up.” The evolving skin microbiome on children was dominated by Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. In addition, children had higher levels of Streptococcus, Moraxella, Granulicatella, Gemella and Veillonella, compared with their adult mothers. Adult skin was colonized predominantly by Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

“The skin microbiome also increased in diversity over time on the forearm, but not face, of the mothers,” Dr. Capone said. “Previous studies have shown how stable the adult skin microbiome is, so it’s intriguing to see the changes that we saw on the mothers in this study.”

The increase in skin microbiome diversity observed in the children is likely due to a variety of factors, she continued, including inherent growth and development, dietary changes, as well as exposure to various environments and other people. “The fact remains that diversity is increasing over time, as the ecosystem evolves,” she said. “Eventually, the skin microbiome will become ‘adultlike’ in puberty, when lipid production increases. This drives increases in Cutibacterium acnes, particularly on the face.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small size and the fact that some of the original subjects did not return for microbiome analysis at later time points. “We need larger cohort studies, additional deeper sequence data, metabolomics and transcriptomics to better understand the function of the skin microbiome over these various ages,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer. Dr. Capone and her two coauthors are employees of the company.

[email protected]

The skin microbiome is similar between the first few weeks of life and 3-4 years of age, then increases in richness and diversity through age 10, while the skin microbiome of the mothers of the children whose microbiome was analyzed remained relatively constant over the same time period.

Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute

The findings come from what is believed to be the longest longitudinal study specific to the skin microbiome of infants and mothers.

“Even at 10 years, the skin microbiome does not look like an adult skin microbiome, based on composition of the ecosystem,” lead author Kimberly A. Capone, PhD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “The diversity of the microbiome in children’s skin is distinct to that of an adult’s skin. We all have the same bacteria present, but in children it is distributed differently because the bacteria set themselves up based on the nutrients and topography that they find on the skin. Since infant skin is unique to infants, so too is their microbiome when we compare it to adults. It’s been fascinating to observe these children grow and mature, and follow the skin microbiome along this same period.”

During five time points over a period of 10 years, Dr. Capone and her colleagues at the Skillman, N.J.–based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Experience Center, a research and development site, used 16s rRNA gene sequencing to evaluate the skin microbiome on the forearms and foreheads of 30 mothers and their 31 children. The study participants had Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV and the mean age of mothers was 37 years. “We used 16s rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome analysis at the beginning, as that was what was available 10 years ago,” said Dr. Capone, head of the microbiome platform for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health. “Since then, we continue to use 16s for continuity, but also collected additional swabs for deeper analysis later.”

She and her colleagues often draw samples from the forearm in baby skin clinical studies, “as the arm is a good site to collect relevant data on the body overall,” she explained. “We chose the forearm and forehead specifically here so we can make same body site comparisons to adult sample data which we took from the mothers on the same areas of their body.” Time point 1 was 3 months to 1 year, time point 2 was 2-3 years, time point 3 was 5-6 years, time point 4 was 7-8 years, and time point 5 was 9-10 years.

The researchers found that the skin of infants during the first few weeks of life was similar at age 3 and 4 years. “From that second time point on, we see significant increases in richness and diversity, richness being presence or absence of various bacterial species, and diversity being the relative abundance of those species,” Dr. Capone said. “What you’re basically seeing is that there are new organisms, i.e., richness, coming into the microbiome. We start to detect new ones. Over time, the ecosystem is expanding. It’s evolving because it’s not yet set up.” The evolving skin microbiome on children was dominated by Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. In addition, children had higher levels of Streptococcus, Moraxella, Granulicatella, Gemella and Veillonella, compared with their adult mothers. Adult skin was colonized predominantly by Propionibacterium/Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

“The skin microbiome also increased in diversity over time on the forearm, but not face, of the mothers,” Dr. Capone said. “Previous studies have shown how stable the adult skin microbiome is, so it’s intriguing to see the changes that we saw on the mothers in this study.”

The increase in skin microbiome diversity observed in the children is likely due to a variety of factors, she continued, including inherent growth and development, dietary changes, as well as exposure to various environments and other people. “The fact remains that diversity is increasing over time, as the ecosystem evolves,” she said. “Eventually, the skin microbiome will become ‘adultlike’ in puberty, when lipid production increases. This drives increases in Cutibacterium acnes, particularly on the face.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small size and the fact that some of the original subjects did not return for microbiome analysis at later time points. “We need larger cohort studies, additional deeper sequence data, metabolomics and transcriptomics to better understand the function of the skin microbiome over these various ages,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer. Dr. Capone and her two coauthors are employees of the company.

[email protected]

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

ANSWER

The correct answer is seborrheic keratosis (choice “a”).

DISCUSSION

Seborrheic keratosis could not be in the differential because it is, by definition, an epidermal lesion—that is, “stuck on” the surface of the skin. It creates a rough surface that can be easily scraped off. The lesion could have been an actual scar, but other factors (its continuous growth) and the history of excessive ultraviolet exposure pushed us away from including this condition in the differential.

The differential for this patient included sun-caused skin cancers: basal cell carcinoma (BCC; choice “b”), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; choice “d”), and amelanotic melanoma (choice “c”). These conditions can have a colorless and scar-like appearance, and they also destroy surface adnexae. Therefore, the lack of hairs, pores, or skin lines in a circumscribed area should raise concern for possible skin cancer, especially in at-risk patients such as this one.

BCC (otherwise known as cicatricial basal cell carcinoma) is by far the most common of all sun-caused skin cancers, but it usually presents as an obvious papule or nodule, often with telltale features such as pearly, rolled borders and focal erosion or ulceration. But there are exceptions, and the scar-like BCC is one.

SCC can also occasionally present in this manner, as can amelanotic melanoma, which is a colorless melanoma and very easy to miss. This case perfectly illustrates the point I often make to the students and residents I teach: When skin cancer is suspected, pay at least as much attention to the owner as to the lesion. Also, when in doubt, biopsy will settle the matter.

TREATMENT

For the patient, shave biopsy confirmed the presence of BCC. She was then referred for Mohs micrographic surgery because of the lesion’s size, location, and uncertain visible margins.

ANSWER

The correct answer is seborrheic keratosis (choice “a”).

DISCUSSION

Seborrheic keratosis could not be in the differential because it is, by definition, an epidermal lesion—that is, “stuck on” the surface of the skin. It creates a rough surface that can be easily scraped off. The lesion could have been an actual scar, but other factors (its continuous growth) and the history of excessive ultraviolet exposure pushed us away from including this condition in the differential.

The differential for this patient included sun-caused skin cancers: basal cell carcinoma (BCC; choice “b”), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; choice “d”), and amelanotic melanoma (choice “c”). These conditions can have a colorless and scar-like appearance, and they also destroy surface adnexae. Therefore, the lack of hairs, pores, or skin lines in a circumscribed area should raise concern for possible skin cancer, especially in at-risk patients such as this one.

BCC (otherwise known as cicatricial basal cell carcinoma) is by far the most common of all sun-caused skin cancers, but it usually presents as an obvious papule or nodule, often with telltale features such as pearly, rolled borders and focal erosion or ulceration. But there are exceptions, and the scar-like BCC is one.

SCC can also occasionally present in this manner, as can amelanotic melanoma, which is a colorless melanoma and very easy to miss. This case perfectly illustrates the point I often make to the students and residents I teach: When skin cancer is suspected, pay at least as much attention to the owner as to the lesion. Also, when in doubt, biopsy will settle the matter.

TREATMENT

For the patient, shave biopsy confirmed the presence of BCC. She was then referred for Mohs micrographic surgery because of the lesion’s size, location, and uncertain visible margins.

ANSWER

The correct answer is seborrheic keratosis (choice “a”).

DISCUSSION

Seborrheic keratosis could not be in the differential because it is, by definition, an epidermal lesion—that is, “stuck on” the surface of the skin. It creates a rough surface that can be easily scraped off. The lesion could have been an actual scar, but other factors (its continuous growth) and the history of excessive ultraviolet exposure pushed us away from including this condition in the differential.

The differential for this patient included sun-caused skin cancers: basal cell carcinoma (BCC; choice “b”), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; choice “d”), and amelanotic melanoma (choice “c”). These conditions can have a colorless and scar-like appearance, and they also destroy surface adnexae. Therefore, the lack of hairs, pores, or skin lines in a circumscribed area should raise concern for possible skin cancer, especially in at-risk patients such as this one.

BCC (otherwise known as cicatricial basal cell carcinoma) is by far the most common of all sun-caused skin cancers, but it usually presents as an obvious papule or nodule, often with telltale features such as pearly, rolled borders and focal erosion or ulceration. But there are exceptions, and the scar-like BCC is one.

SCC can also occasionally present in this manner, as can amelanotic melanoma, which is a colorless melanoma and very easy to miss. This case perfectly illustrates the point I often make to the students and residents I teach: When skin cancer is suspected, pay at least as much attention to the owner as to the lesion. Also, when in doubt, biopsy will settle the matter.

TREATMENT

For the patient, shave biopsy confirmed the presence of BCC. She was then referred for Mohs micrographic surgery because of the lesion’s size, location, and uncertain visible margins.

A phone, an app, and the next generation of implanted cardiac device data signaling produced an unprecedented level of data transmission compliance in a single-arm, multicenter, pilot study with 245 patients, adding momentum to the expanding penetration of personal smart devices into cardiac electrophysiology.

During 12-month follow-up, the 245 patients who received either a medically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)–pacemaker equipped with Bluetooth remote transmission capability had successful data transfer to their clinicians for 95% of their scheduled data uploads while using a personal phone or tablet as the link between their heart implant and the Internet. This rate significantly surpassed the transmission-success rates tallied by traditional, bedside transmitters in historical control groups, Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

A related analysis by Dr. Tarakji and colleagues of 811 patients from real-world practice who received similar implanted cardiac devices with the same remote-transmission capability showed a 93% rate of successful data transfers via smart devices.

In contrast, historical performance showed a 77% success rate in matched patients drawn from a pool of more than 69,000 people in routine care who had received a pacemaker or CRT-pacemaker that automatically transmitted to a bedside monitor. Historical transmission success among matched patients from a pool of more than 128,000 routine-care patients with similar implants who used a wand to interrogate their implants before the attached monitor transmitted their data had a 56% rate of successful transmissions.

Cardiac device signals that flow directly into a patient’s phone or pad and then relay automatically via an app to the clinic “are clearly much easier,” than the methods now used, observed Dr. Tarakji, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. “It is truly as seamless as possible. Patients don’t really need to do anything,” he said during a press briefing. The key is that most patients tend to keep their smart devices, especially their phones, near them all the time, which minimizes the chance that the implanted cardiac device might try to file a report when the patient is not positioned near the device that’s facilitating transmission. When patients use conventional, bedside transmitters they can forget to bring them on trips, while many fewer fail to take their phone. Another advantage is that the link between a phone and a cardiac implant can be started in the clinic once the patient downloads an app. Bedside units need home setup, and “some patients never even get theirs out of the box,” Dr. Tarakji lamented.

Another feature of handheld device transmissions that run off an app is that the app can display clinical metrics, activity, device performance, and transmission history, as well as educational information. All of these features can enhance patient engagement with their implanted device, their arrhythmia, and their health status. Bedside units often give patients little feedback, and they don’t display clinical data. “The real challenge for clinicians is what data you let patients see. That’s complicated,” Dr. Tarakji said.

“This study was designed to see whether the technology works. The next step is to study how it affects risk-factor modification” or other outcomes. “There are many opportunities” to explore with this new data transmission and processing capability, he concluded.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study enrolled patients at 20 centers in the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom during 2018, and the 245 patients who received a BlueSync device and were included in the analysis sent at least one of their scheduled data transmissions during their 12 months of follow-up. Participants were eligible if they were willing to use their own smart phone or pad that could interact with their cardiac implant, and included both first-time implant recipients as well as some patients who received replacement units.

Personal device–based data transmission from cardiac implants “will no doubt change the way we manage patients,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans, and a designated discussant for the report. “Every implanted cardiac device should be able to connect with a phone, which can improve adoption and adherence,” he said.

But the study has several limitations for interpreting the implications of the findings, starting with its limited size and single-arm design, noted a second discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. Another issue is the generalizability of the findings, which are likely biased by involving only patients who own a smart phone or tablet and may be more likely to transmit their data regardless of the means. And comparing transmission success in a prospective study with rates that occurred during real-world, routine practice could have a Hawthorne effect bias, where people under study behave differently than they do in everyday life. But that effect may be mitigated by confirmatory findings from a real-world group that also used smart-device transmission included in the report. Despite these caveats, it’s valuable to develop new ways of improving data collection from cardiac devices, Dr. Tung said.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Bluetooth-enabled cardiac devices. Dr. Tarakji has been a consultant to Medtronic, and also to AliveCor, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and he has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tarakji KG. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A phone, an app, and the next generation of implanted cardiac device data signaling produced an unprecedented level of data transmission compliance in a single-arm, multicenter, pilot study with 245 patients, adding momentum to the expanding penetration of personal smart devices into cardiac electrophysiology.

During 12-month follow-up, the 245 patients who received either a medically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)–pacemaker equipped with Bluetooth remote transmission capability had successful data transfer to their clinicians for 95% of their scheduled data uploads while using a personal phone or tablet as the link between their heart implant and the Internet. This rate significantly surpassed the transmission-success rates tallied by traditional, bedside transmitters in historical control groups, Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

A related analysis by Dr. Tarakji and colleagues of 811 patients from real-world practice who received similar implanted cardiac devices with the same remote-transmission capability showed a 93% rate of successful data transfers via smart devices.

In contrast, historical performance showed a 77% success rate in matched patients drawn from a pool of more than 69,000 people in routine care who had received a pacemaker or CRT-pacemaker that automatically transmitted to a bedside monitor. Historical transmission success among matched patients from a pool of more than 128,000 routine-care patients with similar implants who used a wand to interrogate their implants before the attached monitor transmitted their data had a 56% rate of successful transmissions.

Cardiac device signals that flow directly into a patient’s phone or pad and then relay automatically via an app to the clinic “are clearly much easier,” than the methods now used, observed Dr. Tarakji, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. “It is truly as seamless as possible. Patients don’t really need to do anything,” he said during a press briefing. The key is that most patients tend to keep their smart devices, especially their phones, near them all the time, which minimizes the chance that the implanted cardiac device might try to file a report when the patient is not positioned near the device that’s facilitating transmission. When patients use conventional, bedside transmitters they can forget to bring them on trips, while many fewer fail to take their phone. Another advantage is that the link between a phone and a cardiac implant can be started in the clinic once the patient downloads an app. Bedside units need home setup, and “some patients never even get theirs out of the box,” Dr. Tarakji lamented.

Another feature of handheld device transmissions that run off an app is that the app can display clinical metrics, activity, device performance, and transmission history, as well as educational information. All of these features can enhance patient engagement with their implanted device, their arrhythmia, and their health status. Bedside units often give patients little feedback, and they don’t display clinical data. “The real challenge for clinicians is what data you let patients see. That’s complicated,” Dr. Tarakji said.

“This study was designed to see whether the technology works. The next step is to study how it affects risk-factor modification” or other outcomes. “There are many opportunities” to explore with this new data transmission and processing capability, he concluded.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study enrolled patients at 20 centers in the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom during 2018, and the 245 patients who received a BlueSync device and were included in the analysis sent at least one of their scheduled data transmissions during their 12 months of follow-up. Participants were eligible if they were willing to use their own smart phone or pad that could interact with their cardiac implant, and included both first-time implant recipients as well as some patients who received replacement units.

Personal device–based data transmission from cardiac implants “will no doubt change the way we manage patients,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans, and a designated discussant for the report. “Every implanted cardiac device should be able to connect with a phone, which can improve adoption and adherence,” he said.

But the study has several limitations for interpreting the implications of the findings, starting with its limited size and single-arm design, noted a second discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. Another issue is the generalizability of the findings, which are likely biased by involving only patients who own a smart phone or tablet and may be more likely to transmit their data regardless of the means. And comparing transmission success in a prospective study with rates that occurred during real-world, routine practice could have a Hawthorne effect bias, where people under study behave differently than they do in everyday life. But that effect may be mitigated by confirmatory findings from a real-world group that also used smart-device transmission included in the report. Despite these caveats, it’s valuable to develop new ways of improving data collection from cardiac devices, Dr. Tung said.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Bluetooth-enabled cardiac devices. Dr. Tarakji has been a consultant to Medtronic, and also to AliveCor, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and he has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tarakji KG. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A phone, an app, and the next generation of implanted cardiac device data signaling produced an unprecedented level of data transmission compliance in a single-arm, multicenter, pilot study with 245 patients, adding momentum to the expanding penetration of personal smart devices into cardiac electrophysiology.

During 12-month follow-up, the 245 patients who received either a medically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)–pacemaker equipped with Bluetooth remote transmission capability had successful data transfer to their clinicians for 95% of their scheduled data uploads while using a personal phone or tablet as the link between their heart implant and the Internet. This rate significantly surpassed the transmission-success rates tallied by traditional, bedside transmitters in historical control groups, Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

A related analysis by Dr. Tarakji and colleagues of 811 patients from real-world practice who received similar implanted cardiac devices with the same remote-transmission capability showed a 93% rate of successful data transfers via smart devices.

In contrast, historical performance showed a 77% success rate in matched patients drawn from a pool of more than 69,000 people in routine care who had received a pacemaker or CRT-pacemaker that automatically transmitted to a bedside monitor. Historical transmission success among matched patients from a pool of more than 128,000 routine-care patients with similar implants who used a wand to interrogate their implants before the attached monitor transmitted their data had a 56% rate of successful transmissions.

Cardiac device signals that flow directly into a patient’s phone or pad and then relay automatically via an app to the clinic “are clearly much easier,” than the methods now used, observed Dr. Tarakji, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. “It is truly as seamless as possible. Patients don’t really need to do anything,” he said during a press briefing. The key is that most patients tend to keep their smart devices, especially their phones, near them all the time, which minimizes the chance that the implanted cardiac device might try to file a report when the patient is not positioned near the device that’s facilitating transmission. When patients use conventional, bedside transmitters they can forget to bring them on trips, while many fewer fail to take their phone. Another advantage is that the link between a phone and a cardiac implant can be started in the clinic once the patient downloads an app. Bedside units need home setup, and “some patients never even get theirs out of the box,” Dr. Tarakji lamented.

Another feature of handheld device transmissions that run off an app is that the app can display clinical metrics, activity, device performance, and transmission history, as well as educational information. All of these features can enhance patient engagement with their implanted device, their arrhythmia, and their health status. Bedside units often give patients little feedback, and they don’t display clinical data. “The real challenge for clinicians is what data you let patients see. That’s complicated,” Dr. Tarakji said.

“This study was designed to see whether the technology works. The next step is to study how it affects risk-factor modification” or other outcomes. “There are many opportunities” to explore with this new data transmission and processing capability, he concluded.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study enrolled patients at 20 centers in the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom during 2018, and the 245 patients who received a BlueSync device and were included in the analysis sent at least one of their scheduled data transmissions during their 12 months of follow-up. Participants were eligible if they were willing to use their own smart phone or pad that could interact with their cardiac implant, and included both first-time implant recipients as well as some patients who received replacement units.

Personal device–based data transmission from cardiac implants “will no doubt change the way we manage patients,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans, and a designated discussant for the report. “Every implanted cardiac device should be able to connect with a phone, which can improve adoption and adherence,” he said.

But the study has several limitations for interpreting the implications of the findings, starting with its limited size and single-arm design, noted a second discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. Another issue is the generalizability of the findings, which are likely biased by involving only patients who own a smart phone or tablet and may be more likely to transmit their data regardless of the means. And comparing transmission success in a prospective study with rates that occurred during real-world, routine practice could have a Hawthorne effect bias, where people under study behave differently than they do in everyday life. But that effect may be mitigated by confirmatory findings from a real-world group that also used smart-device transmission included in the report. Despite these caveats, it’s valuable to develop new ways of improving data collection from cardiac devices, Dr. Tung said.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Bluetooth-enabled cardiac devices. Dr. Tarakji has been a consultant to Medtronic, and also to AliveCor, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and he has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tarakji KG. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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