Hematology News

Real-world data for caplacizumab outcomes matched those seen in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP), according to the results of a retrospective study.

Data collected from 2018 to 2020 were assessed for 85 patients (4 of them children) receiving caplacizumab at 22 United Kingdom hospitals, according to a report published online in Blood.

Researchers Tina Dutt, PhD, from the Liverpool (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and her colleagues compared patient characteristics and outcomes in these real-world clinical settings to those of caplacizumab trial endpoint results and to historical outcomes in the precaplacizumab era.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is an immune-mediated deficiency of the von Willebrand factor–cleaving protease (ADAMTS13), which allows unrestrained adhesion of von Willebrand factor multimers to platelets, leading to thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and tissue ischemia.

Standard management of iTTP has focused on the replacement of ADAMTS13 and the removal of autoantibodies using plasma exchange and immunosuppression, an approach which has reduced the mortality of acute TTP from greater than 90% to between 10% and 20%, according to the report.

Caplacizumab is a novel anti–von Willebrand factor immunoglobulin fragment that inhibits this interaction between von Willebrand factor multimers and platelets and is now added to the standard treatment regimen. The drug has been assessed in two pivotal multicenter RCTs that led to European Union and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Benefits and risk

Eighty-four of 85 patients received steroid and rituximab as well as plasma exchange along with caplacizumab treatment. All patients had ADAMTS13 activity at presentation less than 20 IU/dL, with 99% of patients (84/85) having ADAMTS13 activity less than 10 IU/dL, confirming a clinical diagnosis of acute TTP, according to the researchers.

The median time to platelet count normalization (3 days), the median duration of plasma exchange (7 days), and the median hospital stay (12 days) were all comparable with the RCT data, according to the researchers. In addition, the median duration of plasma exchange and time from beginning plasma exchange to platelet count normalization were favorable, compared with historical outcomes (P < .05).

TTP recurred in 5 of the 85 patients, all of whom had persistent ADAMTS13 activity less than 5 IU/dL.

There were 31 adverse events reported in 26 patients, 17 of these (55%) were bleeding episodes, and 5 of 31 (16%) were thrombotic events (2 unrelated to caplacizumab). The overall mortality was 6% (five patients), with no deaths attributed to caplacizumab. In four of the five deaths, caplacizumab was introduced more than 48 hours after plasma exchange initiation (range 3-21 days).

“This real-world evidence from the largest series of TTP patients receiving caplacizumab, outside of the pivotal studies, provides confirmation of the therapeutic benefits of caplacizumab and its inherent bleeding risk,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Dutt and several of her colleagues reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi for serving on advisory boards, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and Alexion.

[email protected]

Real-world data for caplacizumab outcomes matched those seen in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP), according to the results of a retrospective study.

Data collected from 2018 to 2020 were assessed for 85 patients (4 of them children) receiving caplacizumab at 22 United Kingdom hospitals, according to a report published online in Blood.

Researchers Tina Dutt, PhD, from the Liverpool (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and her colleagues compared patient characteristics and outcomes in these real-world clinical settings to those of caplacizumab trial endpoint results and to historical outcomes in the precaplacizumab era.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is an immune-mediated deficiency of the von Willebrand factor–cleaving protease (ADAMTS13), which allows unrestrained adhesion of von Willebrand factor multimers to platelets, leading to thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and tissue ischemia.

Standard management of iTTP has focused on the replacement of ADAMTS13 and the removal of autoantibodies using plasma exchange and immunosuppression, an approach which has reduced the mortality of acute TTP from greater than 90% to between 10% and 20%, according to the report.

Caplacizumab is a novel anti–von Willebrand factor immunoglobulin fragment that inhibits this interaction between von Willebrand factor multimers and platelets and is now added to the standard treatment regimen. The drug has been assessed in two pivotal multicenter RCTs that led to European Union and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Benefits and risk

Eighty-four of 85 patients received steroid and rituximab as well as plasma exchange along with caplacizumab treatment. All patients had ADAMTS13 activity at presentation less than 20 IU/dL, with 99% of patients (84/85) having ADAMTS13 activity less than 10 IU/dL, confirming a clinical diagnosis of acute TTP, according to the researchers.

The median time to platelet count normalization (3 days), the median duration of plasma exchange (7 days), and the median hospital stay (12 days) were all comparable with the RCT data, according to the researchers. In addition, the median duration of plasma exchange and time from beginning plasma exchange to platelet count normalization were favorable, compared with historical outcomes (P < .05).

TTP recurred in 5 of the 85 patients, all of whom had persistent ADAMTS13 activity less than 5 IU/dL.

There were 31 adverse events reported in 26 patients, 17 of these (55%) were bleeding episodes, and 5 of 31 (16%) were thrombotic events (2 unrelated to caplacizumab). The overall mortality was 6% (five patients), with no deaths attributed to caplacizumab. In four of the five deaths, caplacizumab was introduced more than 48 hours after plasma exchange initiation (range 3-21 days).

“This real-world evidence from the largest series of TTP patients receiving caplacizumab, outside of the pivotal studies, provides confirmation of the therapeutic benefits of caplacizumab and its inherent bleeding risk,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Dutt and several of her colleagues reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi for serving on advisory boards, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and Alexion.

[email protected]

Real-world data for caplacizumab outcomes matched those seen in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP), according to the results of a retrospective study.

Data collected from 2018 to 2020 were assessed for 85 patients (4 of them children) receiving caplacizumab at 22 United Kingdom hospitals, according to a report published online in Blood.

Researchers Tina Dutt, PhD, from the Liverpool (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and her colleagues compared patient characteristics and outcomes in these real-world clinical settings to those of caplacizumab trial endpoint results and to historical outcomes in the precaplacizumab era.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is an immune-mediated deficiency of the von Willebrand factor–cleaving protease (ADAMTS13), which allows unrestrained adhesion of von Willebrand factor multimers to platelets, leading to thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and tissue ischemia.

Standard management of iTTP has focused on the replacement of ADAMTS13 and the removal of autoantibodies using plasma exchange and immunosuppression, an approach which has reduced the mortality of acute TTP from greater than 90% to between 10% and 20%, according to the report.

Caplacizumab is a novel anti–von Willebrand factor immunoglobulin fragment that inhibits this interaction between von Willebrand factor multimers and platelets and is now added to the standard treatment regimen. The drug has been assessed in two pivotal multicenter RCTs that led to European Union and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Benefits and risk

Eighty-four of 85 patients received steroid and rituximab as well as plasma exchange along with caplacizumab treatment. All patients had ADAMTS13 activity at presentation less than 20 IU/dL, with 99% of patients (84/85) having ADAMTS13 activity less than 10 IU/dL, confirming a clinical diagnosis of acute TTP, according to the researchers.

The median time to platelet count normalization (3 days), the median duration of plasma exchange (7 days), and the median hospital stay (12 days) were all comparable with the RCT data, according to the researchers. In addition, the median duration of plasma exchange and time from beginning plasma exchange to platelet count normalization were favorable, compared with historical outcomes (P < .05).

TTP recurred in 5 of the 85 patients, all of whom had persistent ADAMTS13 activity less than 5 IU/dL.

There were 31 adverse events reported in 26 patients, 17 of these (55%) were bleeding episodes, and 5 of 31 (16%) were thrombotic events (2 unrelated to caplacizumab). The overall mortality was 6% (five patients), with no deaths attributed to caplacizumab. In four of the five deaths, caplacizumab was introduced more than 48 hours after plasma exchange initiation (range 3-21 days).

“This real-world evidence from the largest series of TTP patients receiving caplacizumab, outside of the pivotal studies, provides confirmation of the therapeutic benefits of caplacizumab and its inherent bleeding risk,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Dutt and several of her colleagues reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi for serving on advisory boards, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and Alexion.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Design Cells/Getty Images

National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.

“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.

The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.

Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.

“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.

For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.

“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”

Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.

Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.

“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”

In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.

Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.

Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.

Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
 

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.

For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.

At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.

“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.

COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
 

More than half a million excess deaths

Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.

Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.

Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.

Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.

In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States. 

Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
 

‘Massive’ excessive mortality

“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”

Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

The European Medicines Agency continues to reassure the public about the safety of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, although several countries have imposed new restrictions on the product, owing to its link to a rare clotting disorder.

Use of the vaccine has been suspended for individuals younger than 55 or 60 years in several European countries and in Canada after reports of a prothrombotic disorder and thrombocytopenia, mainly in younger individuals.

Now, more information on the prothrombotic disorder has become available. The vaccine appears to be linked to a condition that clinically resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and that occurs mainly in younger women.

Researchers have described clinical and laboratory details of nine patients from Germany and Austria who developed this condition 4-16 days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in a preprint article published March 28, 2021, on Research Square.

They found that serum from four patients who were tested showed platelet-activating antibodies directed against platelet factor 4 (PF4), similar to what is seen in HIT.

They are proposing naming the condition “vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT)” to avoid confusion with HIT.

At a press conference March 31, the EMA said its ongoing review of the situation “has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender, or a previous medical history of clotting disorders, for these very rare events. A causal link with the vaccine is not proven but is possible, and further analysis is continuing.”

A statement from the agency noted: “EMA is of the view that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalization and death, outweigh the risks of side effects.”

But it added: “Vaccinated people should be aware of the remote possibility of these very rare types of blood clots occurring. If they have symptoms suggestive of clotting problems as described in the product information, they should seek immediate medical attention and inform health care professionals of their recent vaccination.”
 

VIPIT study

In the Research Square preprint article, a group led by Andreas Greinacher, MD, professor of transfusion medicine at the Greifswald (Germany) University Clinic, reported on clinical and laboratory features of nine patients (eight of whom were women) in Germany and Austria who developed thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after they received the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The researchers explained that they investigated whether these patients could have a prothrombotic disorder caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against PF4, which is known to be caused by heparin and sometimes environmental triggers.

The nine patients were aged 22-49 years and presented with thrombosis beginning 4-16 days post vaccination. Seven patients had cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), one had pulmonary embolism, and one had splanchnic vein thrombosis and CVT. Four patients died. None had received heparin prior to symptom onset.

Serum from four patients was tested for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, and all four tested strongly positive. All four also tested strongly positive on platelet activation assay for the presence of PF4 independently of heparin.

The authors noted that it has been recognized that triggers other than heparin, including some infections, can rarely cause a disorder that strongly resembles HIT. These cases have been referred to as spontaneous HIT syndrome.

They said that their current findings have several important clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware that onset of (venous or arterial) thrombosis particularly at unusual sites such as in the brain or abdomen and thrombocytopenia beginning approximately 5-14 days after vaccination can represent a rare adverse effect of preceding COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote. To date, this has only been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

They pointed out that enzyme immunoassays for HIT are widely available and can be used to investigate for potential postvaccination anti-PF4 antibody–associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. For such patients, referral should be made to a laboratory that performs platelet-activation assays.

Although this syndrome differs from typical HIT, the researchers noted that at least one patient showed strong platelet activation in the presence of heparin. They thus recommended therapy with nonheparin anticoagulants, such as the direct oral anticoagulants.

They also wrote that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to be effective for treating severe HIT and could also be an important treatment adjunct for patients who develop life-threatening thrombotic events, such as cerebral vein sinus thrombosis (CVST), after being vaccinated.
 

EMA data to date

Updated data, reported at the EMA press briefing on March 31, indicate that 62 cases of CVST have been reported worldwide (44 from the European Union). These data may not yet include all the German cases.

Peter Arlett, MD, head of pharmacovigilance and epidemiology at the EMA, said there were more cases than expected in the 2-week window after vaccination among patients younger than 60 and that health care professionals should be alert to features of this condition, including headache and blurred vision.

He suggested that the higher rate of the condition among younger women may reflect the population that received this vaccine, because initially, the vaccine was not recommended for older people in many countries and was targeted toward younger health care workers, who were mainly women.

The German regulatory agency, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, reported this week that it has now registered 31 cases of CVST among nearly 2.7 million people who had received the vaccine in Germany. Of these patients, 19 also were found to have a deficiency of blood platelets or thrombocytopenia. Nine of the affected patients died. All but two of the cases occurred in women aged 20-63 years. The two men were aged 36 and 57 years.

These data have prompted the German authorities to limit use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those aged 60 years and older. Even before this decision, senior clinicians in Germany had been urging a change in the vaccination recommendations.

For example, Bernd Salzberger, MD, head of infectious diseases, University Hospital Regensburg (Germany), told the Science Media Center: “In women, a complicated course of COVID disease is less common from the start and is so rare in younger women that the chance of avoiding a fatal course through vaccination in women without comorbidities is of the same order of magnitude as the risk of this rare side effect.”

Sandra Ciesek, MD, a virologist at Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, told the journal Science: “The argument I keep hearing is that the risk-benefit ratio is still positive. But we do not have just one vaccine, we have several. So, restricting the AstraZeneca vaccine to older people makes sense to me, and it does not waste any doses.”
 

Concerns put in perspective

Commenting of the latest developments, thrombosis expert Saskia Middeldorp, MD, head of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said it was vitally important that these concerns be put in perspective and that the vaccination program with the AstraZeneca product continue.

“There are some concerning reports about very rare blood clotting disorders and low platelet counts possibly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Groups from Germany and Norway have identified a syndrome similar to HIT, which seems to explain the cause of this very rare side effect,” Dr. Middeldorp noted.

“But with such a high pressure from the virus and many countries now going into a third wave of infection, anything that might slow down vaccination rates will cause much more harm than good,” she warned.

Dr. Middeldorp believes the incidence of this HIT-type syndrome linked to the vaccine is about 1-2 per million. “These are estimates based on the number of reports of this side effect and denominators from the U.K. and EU populations,” she explained. However, Germany has restricted the vaccine on the basis of German data, which appear to show higher rates of the condition. It is not known why the rates are higher in Germany.

“The European Medicines Agency is looking at this very closely. Their statement is quite clear. There is no foundation for changing policy on vaccination,” Dr. Middeldorp stated.

She cautioned that these reports were reducing confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, particularly among young people, which she said was causing “a major setback” for the vaccination program.

Noting that everything must be viewed in the context of this severe pandemic, Dr. Middeldorp emphasized that the benefit of the vaccine outweighed any risk, even among young people.

“To those who may be hesitating to have the vaccine as they don’t think they are at high risk of severe COVID infection, I would say there are a lot of young people in the ICU at present with COVID, and your chance of a severe COVID illness is far higher than the 1 or 2 in a million risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine,” she stated.

Dr. Greinacher has received grants and nonfinancial support from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Paringenix, Bayer Healthcare, Gore, Rovi, Sagent, and Biomarin/Prosensa; personal fees from Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chromatec, and Instrumentation Laboratory; and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Portola, Ergomed, and GTH outside the submitted work.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

April 5 is the official start date of a U.S. law requiring health care organizations to provide patients with free, full, and immediate electronic access to their doctor’s clinical notes as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

The mandate, called “open notes” by many, is part of the 21st Century Cures Act, a wide-ranging piece of federal health care legislation. The previous deadline of Nov. 2, 2020, for enacting open notes was extended last year because of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizations must provide access via patient portals to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, histories, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes. Noncompliant organizations will eventually be subject to fines from the Department of Health & Human Services for “information blocking.”

This news organization reported on the mandate in 2020, and some readers said it was an unwelcome intrusion into practice. Since then, this news organization has run additional open notes stories about physician concerns, a perspective essay addressing those fears, and a reader poll about the phenomenon.

Now, as the legislation turns into a practical clinical matter, there are five key points clinicians should consider.
 

Clinicians don’t have to change writing style.

The new law mandates timely patient access to notes and test results, but it doesn’t require that clinicians alter their writing, said Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento.

“You don’t have to change your notes,” he said. However, patients are now part of the note audience and some health care systems are directing clinicians to make patient-friendly style changes.

Everyday experience should guide clinicians when writing notes, said one expert.

“When you’re not sure [of how to write a note], just mirror the way you would speak in the office – that’s going to get you right, including for mental health issues,” advised Leonor Fernandez, MD, an internist at Beth Deaconess Israel Medical Center, Boston, in her “take-away” comments in the online video, How to Write an Open Note.

According to a 2020 Medscape poll of 1,050 physicians, a majority (56%) anticipate that they will write notes differently, knowing that patients can read them via open notes. Nearly two-thirds (64%) believe that this new wrinkle in medical records will increase their workload. However, actual practice suggests that this is true for a minority of practitioners, according to the results from a recent study of more than 1,000 physicians in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania, who already work in open notes settings. Only about one-third (37%) reported “spending more time on documentation.”

Note writing is going to change because of the addition of the patient reader, and something will be lost, argued Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco. By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” commented Dr. Reidbord, who blogs for Psychology Today and has criticized the open notes movement in the past.

However, years of investigation from OpenNotes, the Boston-based advocacy and research organization, indicates that there are many gains with patient-accessible notes, including improved medical record accuracy, greater medication adherence, and potentially improved health care disparities among a range of patient types. In a 2019 study, researchers said that worry and confusion among note-reading patients are uncommon (5% and 3%, respectively), which addresses two criticisms voiced by multiple people last year.
 

Some clinical notes can be withheld. 

The new rules from the federal government permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties, Tom Delbanco, MD, and Charlotte Blease, PhD, of OpenNotes in Boston wrote in a commentary in February 2021.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new U.S. law and block access to notes, points out MacDonald. For example, California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first.

The OpenNotes organization also points out that, with regard to sensitive psychotherapy notes that are separated from the rest of a medical record, those notes “can be kept from patients without their permission, and such rules vary state by state.”
 

Some patients are more likely readers. 

Some patients are more likely to peer into their files than others, said Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who is also a brain cancer patient.

“Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions ... are more likely to read their notes,” she said in an interview.

A new study of nearly 6,000 medical oncology patients at the University of Wisconsin confirmed that opinion. Patients with incurable metastatic disease were much more likely than those with early-stage, curable disease to read notes. Notably, younger patients were more likely than older ones to access notes, likely the result of generational tech savvy.

Despite the unpredictability of serious disease such as cancer, oncology patients find satisfaction in reading their notes, say experts. “We’ve overwhelmingly heard that patients like it,” Thomas LeBlanc, MD, medical oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., where all patients already have access to clinicians’ notes, told this news organization in 2018.
 

You are part of the avant garde. 

The United States and Scandinavian countries are the world leaders in implementing open notes in clinical practice, Dr. Blease said in an interview.

“It’s a phenomenal achievement” to have enacted open notes nationally, she said. For example, there are no open notes in Northern Ireland, Dr. Blease’s home country, or most of Europe.

In the United States, there are more than 200 medical organizations, including at least one in every state, that were voluntarily providing open notes before April 5, including interstate giants such as Banner Health and big-name medical centers such as Cleveland Clinic.

It may be hard for the United States to top Sweden’s embrace of the practice. The national open notes program now has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, noted Maria Häggland, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) MedTech Science Innovation Center during a webinar last year.
 

The start day will come, and you may not notice. 

“When April 5 happens, something brand new is going to happen symbolically,” Ms. Salmi said. Its importance is hard to measure.

“Patients say they trust their doctor more because they understand their thinking with open notes. How do you value that? We don’t have metrics for that,” she said.

Dr. MacDonald suggested that open notes are both new and not new. In the fall of 2020, he predicted that the launch day would come, and few clinicians would notice, in part because many patients already access truncated information via patient portals.

However, there are “sensitive issues,” such as with adolescents and reproductive health, where “we know that some parents have sign-in information for their teen’s portal,” he commented. With clinical notes now on full display, potential problems “may be out of our control.”

Still, the Sacramento-based physician and IT officer acknowledged that concerns about open notes may be a bit inflated. “I’ve been more worried about reassuring physicians that everything will be okay than what’s actually going to happen [as the law takes effect],” Dr. MacDonald said.

The OpenNotes organization is grant funded, and staff disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.

“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”

[email protected]

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.

“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”

[email protected]

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.

“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”

[email protected]

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For select older patients, it is safe to switch to a lower dose of lenalidomide maintenance therapy and discontinue dexamethasone after 9 months. The regimen is safe and yields outcomes similar to those of standard, continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd), according to new findings.

At a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the experimental arm in which dexamethasone therapy was stopped (Rd-R) versus 6.9 months for standard therapy. The tailored approach also resulted in fewer adverse effects.

The authors noted that there was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival between the two groups.

“These results may be useful for the treatment of myeloma patients, since approximately one-third of patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation are intermediate fit, the population in our study,” said lead author Alessandra Larocca, MD, PhD, from the department of hematology-oncology of the University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.

She said in an interview that they expect that these findings “may help to optimize the treatment of less-fit elderly patients by reducing the occurrence of adverse events and thus improving outcomes and preserving quality of life of these patients.”

This approach is a viable option for clinicians to consider for some patient subgroups. “This steroid-sparing approach can also be used in other combinations,” she said. “Ongoing trials are now evaluating steroid sparing in combination with monoclonal antibodies or the role of frailty-guided treatment.”

The study was published March 19, 2021, in Blood.
 

Curtailing steroids

Myeloma patients aged 75 years or older or who have comorbidities and functional impairments are an understudied population. They are more susceptible to adverse events that may negatively affect the duration of treatment and outcomes. Steroids are “scarcely tolerated” in the long term, even among younger patients, and “whether sparing dexamethasone is as effective as prolonged steroid exposure remains an open issue,” the authors wrote. There are still no clear data on the advantage of continuous steroid treatment as opposed to fixed-duration treatment for newly diagnosed patients.

In 2010, a study compared high-dose with low-dose dexamethasone. As expected, the rate of adverse events was lower among patients who received the low-dose steroid, but quite unexpectedly, deaths with high-dose dexamethasone were significantly higher than with low-dose dexamethasone.

The 1-year overall survival was 96% among patients who received the low dose of dexamethasone versus 87% with the standard high dose.

S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who was the lead author of the 2010 study, spoke with this new organization about the current study. “This is an important and practice-changing study,” he said. “We have already changed our practice and recommendations based on this study.”

He explained that, for transplant-ineligible patients, instead of initial therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by Rd, they use lenalidomide alone without steroids.

“After 9 months of initial therapy, I now recommend we stop dexamethasone unless we are having problems controlling the myeloma, such as progressive disease,” Dr. Rajkumar said. “I congratulate the authors on a study that will improve the quality of life for our patients.”
 

Improved event-free survival

In this study, Dr. Larocca and colleagues investigated the efficacy and feasibility of a dose- and schedule-adjusted Rd regimen that was followed by maintenance Rd-R 10 mg/d and compared the regimen with continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit patients who were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival, defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, and any hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3-4 adverse events.

The cohort consisted of 199 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either Rd-R (n = 101) or continuous Rd (n = 98). The median age was 75 years in the Rd-R arm and 76 years in the Rd arm; 52% of patients in the Rd-R group and 43% in the Rd group were classified as being intermediate fit not for age but for geriatric impairments.

With a median follow-up of 37 months, event-free survival was 10.4 months in the Rd-R arm versus 6.9 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .02). This benefit was maintained beyond nine cycles (median: 19.8 vs. 10.6 months for Rd-R vs. Rd; HR, 0.55; P = .03)

The median PFS was 20.2 months with Rd-R and 18.3 months with Rd (HR, 0.78; P = .16). The median overall survival was not reached. The 3-year overall survival was 74% with Rd-R and 63% with continuous Rd (HR, 0.62; P = .06). Among patients remaining on therapy after nine cycles, no difference in median PFS was observed between the two groups (24.3 vs. 18.7 months; HR, 0.73; P = .19).

Best response was similar for both groups, with an overall response rate of 78% versus 68% (P = .15). The very good partial response rate was 51% in the Rd-R arm versus 39% in the continuous Rd arm (P = .09).

Toxicities were similar between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events of at least grade 3 were reported in 26% of Rd-R patients versus 20% of Rd patients (P = .40). In both groups, the most frequent grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (21% vs 18%). The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were nonhematologic. They occurred in 33% of Rd-R patients and 43% of Rd patients (P = .15). The most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were infections (10% vs. 12%), constitutional (3% vs. 12%), dermatologic (7% vs. 3%), and central nervous toxicities (2% vs. 6%).

The study was sponsored by Fondazione EMN Italy Onlus. Dr. Larocca has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, and has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. Several coauthors also have disclosed relationships with industry. Dr. Rajkumar disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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