Hematology News

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an oral form of azacitidine (Onureg) for use as maintenance therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have achieved a first complete remission.

The approval extends to patients who have achieved complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and who are unable to complete intensive curative therapy.

The approval was based on data from the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, which showed that oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival when compared with placebo.

“It’s not too hard to get these patients into remission,” Harry P. Erba, MD, PhD, director of the Leukemia Program at the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview last year when these results were first presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “The problem comes in keeping them in remission.”

Despite various attempts, there has been no success over the past 30 years in defining maintenance treatment for these patients, Andrew H. Wei, MBBS, PhD, from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, said.

“Oral azacitidine represents a new therapeutic standard for patients with AML in remission,” he said.

Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent that incorporates into DNA and RNA. It has long been used as an injectable therapy for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes.

The approval of the new oral formulation for the new indication of AML “is the culmination of over a decade of research and 13 preclinical and clinical trials,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., chairman and chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, in a statement.

QUAZAR results

The QUAZAR AML-001 trial was a phase 3, international study involving 472 patients with AML who were within achieving a first complete remission or remission with incomplete blood recovery. All patients had received intensive induction chemotherapy with or without consolidation treatment per investigator preference prior to study entry and were not candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant at the time of screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral azacitidine 200 mg daily on days 1-14 of a repeat 28-day cycle (n = 278) or matching placebo (n = 274). Treatment was continued indefinitely until blast count was more than 15% or patients experienced unacceptable toxicity or underwent transplant.

At a median follow-up of more than 41.2 months, the median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received oral azacitidine at 24.7 months versus 14.8 months for those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0009).

Relapse-free survival was also significantly prolonged to 10.2 months for patients who received oral azacitidine vs. 4.8 months for those who received placebo (HR, 0.65; P < .0001).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 15% of patients who received azacitidine. Events that occurred in 2% of patients or more include pneumonia (8%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). There was one fatal event.

The most common adverse reactions were nausea (65% vs. 24%), vomiting (60% vs. 10%), diarrhea (50% vs. 21%), fatigue/asthenia (44% vs. 25%), constipation (39% vs. 24%), pneumonia (27% vs. 17%), abdominal pain (22% vs. 13%) arthralgia (14% vs. 10%), decreased appetite (13% vs. 6%), febrile neutropenia (12% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 9%), and pain in extremity (11% vs. 5%). Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients.
 

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Self-employed physicians have the highest salaries, largest homes, and greatest wealth – yet they feel the least fairly compensated, according to an analysis of data from over 17,000 physicians.

A new examination of survey responses from the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which included information about income, job satisfaction, and more, compared responses from self-employed physicians, independent contractors, and employed physicians.

Income and wealth, benefits, and job satisfaction were compared. From the results of the questionnaire, self-employed physicians stand out among their peers across all categories: They enjoy greater income, wealth, and benefits and appear to be more satisfied by their choice of practice.

“The survey confirms that self-employed is the most satisfying, although the trend in health care is to take employed positions,” said Robert Scroggins, JD, CPA, certified health care business consultant with ScrogginsGreer, Cincinnati. “Doctors who become employees primarily do that to escape the management responsibilities for the practice. It seems to be more a decision to get away from something than to go toward something.”
 

The financial and work picture for self-employed physicians

Self-employed physicians reported the largest salaries for 2019 (average, $360,752), followed by independent contractors ($336,005). Employees reported the lowest average salary ($297,332).

The largest percentage of self-employed physicians (46%) work in an office-based group practice, followed by those in office-based solo practices (30%). Almost two-thirds of self-employed respondents are owners and 37% are partners.

Self-employed physicians are more likely to be older than 45 years; 79% fall into that age bracket, compared with 57% of employees and 70% of independent contractors.

Self-employed physicians reported the highest levels of wealth among their peers. About 44% of self-employed respondents declared a net wealth of over $2 million, compared with 25% of employees. Only 6% of contractors and employed physicians reported a net wealth of over $5 million, compared with 13% of self-employed physicians.

Self-employed physicians also managed their personal expenses slightly differently. They were more likely to pool their income with their spouse in a common account used for bills and expenses, regardless of how much they each earned (63% of self-employed respondents, compared with 58% of employees and 50% of independent contractors).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-employed physicians also reported having the largest homes, with an average square footage of 3,629 square feet, compared with 3,023 square feet for employees and 2,984 square feet for independent contractors. Self-employed physicians’ mortgages (average, $240,389) were similar to those of employed physicians’ mortgages but were higher than those of independent contractors’ mortgages (average, $213,740).

Self-employed physicians were also most likely to highly appraise their own performance: Half of all self-employed respondents felt “very satisfied” with their job performance, compared with 40% of employees and 44% of independent contractors.

When asked what they consider to be the most rewarding aspect of their job, self-employed physicians were more likely to choose gratitude and patient relationships than their peers (32%, compared with 26% of employees and 19% of independent contractors).

Despite their higher net wealth and larger salaries, self-employed physicians were least likely to feel fairly compensated; 49% of self-employed physicians said they did not feel fairly compensated for their work, compared with 40% of employees and 40% of independent contractors.

“Self-employed physicians may be better compensated than others of the same specialty who are employees, so some of that may be perception,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Or they feel they should be compensated to a far greater degree than those who are employed.”

Self-employed physicians were also more likely to respond that they would choose the same practice setting again, though across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for employed physicians

About a third (32%) of employed physician respondents work in hospitals; 28% work in private practices.

Employed physicians were most likely to report a salary increase from 2018 to 2019: 74%, compared with 45% of self-employed and 52% of independent contractors.

As for declines in income, self-employed physicians and independent contractors suffered a comparable loss, with 13% and 12% of them, respectively, reporting salary cuts greater than 10%. Decreases of up to 10% were felt mostly by the self-employed, with 17% experiencing such cuts, compared with 7% of employees and 10% of independent contractors.

In contrast, employees were the least likely of the three categories to have incurred large financial losses over the past year: 77% of employed respondents indicated that they had not experienced any significant financial losses in the past year, compared with 63% of self-employed physicians and 63% of independent contractors. They were also least likely to have made any investments at all over the past year – 21% of employees reported having made none at all in 2019, compared to 11% of self-employed physicians and 16% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for independent contractors

Just over half (52%) of all independent contractors who responded to our questionnaire work in hospitals, 15% work in group practices, 9% work in outpatient clinics, and just 2% work in solo practices.

Independent contractors were less likely than their peers to have received employment benefits such as health insurance, malpractice coverage, and paid time off. They were also less likely to be saving for retirement. Almost half (45%) of independent contractors said they received no employment benefits at all, compared to 20% of self-employed physicians and just 8% of employees.

What’s more, 27% of independent contractors do not currently put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred college savings account on a regular basis, compared with 16% of self-employed physicians and 8% of employees. Similarly, they were less likely to put money into a taxable savings account (39% responded that they do not, compared with 32% of self-employed physicians and 27% of employees).

“Net worth and retirement funding findings do line up with what I’ve observed,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Those who have independent practices as opposed to working for a hospital do tend to more heavily fund retirement plan accounts, which is typically the biggest driver of building net worth.”

Despite the lack of retirement planning, independent contractors were more likely than their peers to derive satisfaction from making money at a job they like (18%, compared with 12% of employees and 11% of self-employed physicians). They’re also far more likely to be in emergency medicine (22% of independent contractors, compared with 3% of self-employed and 5% of employees) or psychiatry (11% of independent contractors, compared with 5% of self-employed and 6% of employees).

Among the three categories of physicians, independent contractors were least likely to say that they would choose the same practice setting again. Across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.

Physicians who are considering leaving their own practice for a hospital setting should do so with caution and fully understand what they are getting into, said Mr. Scroggins. “If they’re just looking at compensation, they also should be looking very carefully at retirement plan benefits. If that’s their main method of saving and building net worth, then that’s a dramatic difference.”

And of course, there’s always the intangible value of feeling connected to a practice and its patients: “Physicians got into this line of work to treat patients and help people become healthier, and in hospitals they end up being more disconnected from their patients,” Mr. Scroggins said. “That’s a big factor as well.”

Editor’s note: Only differences that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level between categories of employment have been included. Of the 13,893 responses included in this analysis, 3,860 physicians identified as self-employed, 9,262 as employees, and 772 as independent contractors.

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

Self-employed physicians have the highest salaries, largest homes, and greatest wealth – yet they feel the least fairly compensated, according to an analysis of data from over 17,000 physicians.

A new examination of survey responses from the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which included information about income, job satisfaction, and more, compared responses from self-employed physicians, independent contractors, and employed physicians.

Income and wealth, benefits, and job satisfaction were compared. From the results of the questionnaire, self-employed physicians stand out among their peers across all categories: They enjoy greater income, wealth, and benefits and appear to be more satisfied by their choice of practice.

“The survey confirms that self-employed is the most satisfying, although the trend in health care is to take employed positions,” said Robert Scroggins, JD, CPA, certified health care business consultant with ScrogginsGreer, Cincinnati. “Doctors who become employees primarily do that to escape the management responsibilities for the practice. It seems to be more a decision to get away from something than to go toward something.”
 

The financial and work picture for self-employed physicians

Self-employed physicians reported the largest salaries for 2019 (average, $360,752), followed by independent contractors ($336,005). Employees reported the lowest average salary ($297,332).

The largest percentage of self-employed physicians (46%) work in an office-based group practice, followed by those in office-based solo practices (30%). Almost two-thirds of self-employed respondents are owners and 37% are partners.

Self-employed physicians are more likely to be older than 45 years; 79% fall into that age bracket, compared with 57% of employees and 70% of independent contractors.

Self-employed physicians reported the highest levels of wealth among their peers. About 44% of self-employed respondents declared a net wealth of over $2 million, compared with 25% of employees. Only 6% of contractors and employed physicians reported a net wealth of over $5 million, compared with 13% of self-employed physicians.

Self-employed physicians also managed their personal expenses slightly differently. They were more likely to pool their income with their spouse in a common account used for bills and expenses, regardless of how much they each earned (63% of self-employed respondents, compared with 58% of employees and 50% of independent contractors).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-employed physicians also reported having the largest homes, with an average square footage of 3,629 square feet, compared with 3,023 square feet for employees and 2,984 square feet for independent contractors. Self-employed physicians’ mortgages (average, $240,389) were similar to those of employed physicians’ mortgages but were higher than those of independent contractors’ mortgages (average, $213,740).

Self-employed physicians were also most likely to highly appraise their own performance: Half of all self-employed respondents felt “very satisfied” with their job performance, compared with 40% of employees and 44% of independent contractors.

When asked what they consider to be the most rewarding aspect of their job, self-employed physicians were more likely to choose gratitude and patient relationships than their peers (32%, compared with 26% of employees and 19% of independent contractors).

Despite their higher net wealth and larger salaries, self-employed physicians were least likely to feel fairly compensated; 49% of self-employed physicians said they did not feel fairly compensated for their work, compared with 40% of employees and 40% of independent contractors.

“Self-employed physicians may be better compensated than others of the same specialty who are employees, so some of that may be perception,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Or they feel they should be compensated to a far greater degree than those who are employed.”

Self-employed physicians were also more likely to respond that they would choose the same practice setting again, though across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for employed physicians

About a third (32%) of employed physician respondents work in hospitals; 28% work in private practices.

Employed physicians were most likely to report a salary increase from 2018 to 2019: 74%, compared with 45% of self-employed and 52% of independent contractors.

As for declines in income, self-employed physicians and independent contractors suffered a comparable loss, with 13% and 12% of them, respectively, reporting salary cuts greater than 10%. Decreases of up to 10% were felt mostly by the self-employed, with 17% experiencing such cuts, compared with 7% of employees and 10% of independent contractors.

In contrast, employees were the least likely of the three categories to have incurred large financial losses over the past year: 77% of employed respondents indicated that they had not experienced any significant financial losses in the past year, compared with 63% of self-employed physicians and 63% of independent contractors. They were also least likely to have made any investments at all over the past year – 21% of employees reported having made none at all in 2019, compared to 11% of self-employed physicians and 16% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for independent contractors

Just over half (52%) of all independent contractors who responded to our questionnaire work in hospitals, 15% work in group practices, 9% work in outpatient clinics, and just 2% work in solo practices.

Independent contractors were less likely than their peers to have received employment benefits such as health insurance, malpractice coverage, and paid time off. They were also less likely to be saving for retirement. Almost half (45%) of independent contractors said they received no employment benefits at all, compared to 20% of self-employed physicians and just 8% of employees.

What’s more, 27% of independent contractors do not currently put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred college savings account on a regular basis, compared with 16% of self-employed physicians and 8% of employees. Similarly, they were less likely to put money into a taxable savings account (39% responded that they do not, compared with 32% of self-employed physicians and 27% of employees).

“Net worth and retirement funding findings do line up with what I’ve observed,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Those who have independent practices as opposed to working for a hospital do tend to more heavily fund retirement plan accounts, which is typically the biggest driver of building net worth.”

Despite the lack of retirement planning, independent contractors were more likely than their peers to derive satisfaction from making money at a job they like (18%, compared with 12% of employees and 11% of self-employed physicians). They’re also far more likely to be in emergency medicine (22% of independent contractors, compared with 3% of self-employed and 5% of employees) or psychiatry (11% of independent contractors, compared with 5% of self-employed and 6% of employees).

Among the three categories of physicians, independent contractors were least likely to say that they would choose the same practice setting again. Across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.

Physicians who are considering leaving their own practice for a hospital setting should do so with caution and fully understand what they are getting into, said Mr. Scroggins. “If they’re just looking at compensation, they also should be looking very carefully at retirement plan benefits. If that’s their main method of saving and building net worth, then that’s a dramatic difference.”

And of course, there’s always the intangible value of feeling connected to a practice and its patients: “Physicians got into this line of work to treat patients and help people become healthier, and in hospitals they end up being more disconnected from their patients,” Mr. Scroggins said. “That’s a big factor as well.”

Editor’s note: Only differences that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level between categories of employment have been included. Of the 13,893 responses included in this analysis, 3,860 physicians identified as self-employed, 9,262 as employees, and 772 as independent contractors.

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

Self-employed physicians have the highest salaries, largest homes, and greatest wealth – yet they feel the least fairly compensated, according to an analysis of data from over 17,000 physicians.

A new examination of survey responses from the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which included information about income, job satisfaction, and more, compared responses from self-employed physicians, independent contractors, and employed physicians.

Income and wealth, benefits, and job satisfaction were compared. From the results of the questionnaire, self-employed physicians stand out among their peers across all categories: They enjoy greater income, wealth, and benefits and appear to be more satisfied by their choice of practice.

“The survey confirms that self-employed is the most satisfying, although the trend in health care is to take employed positions,” said Robert Scroggins, JD, CPA, certified health care business consultant with ScrogginsGreer, Cincinnati. “Doctors who become employees primarily do that to escape the management responsibilities for the practice. It seems to be more a decision to get away from something than to go toward something.”
 

The financial and work picture for self-employed physicians

Self-employed physicians reported the largest salaries for 2019 (average, $360,752), followed by independent contractors ($336,005). Employees reported the lowest average salary ($297,332).

The largest percentage of self-employed physicians (46%) work in an office-based group practice, followed by those in office-based solo practices (30%). Almost two-thirds of self-employed respondents are owners and 37% are partners.

Self-employed physicians are more likely to be older than 45 years; 79% fall into that age bracket, compared with 57% of employees and 70% of independent contractors.

Self-employed physicians reported the highest levels of wealth among their peers. About 44% of self-employed respondents declared a net wealth of over $2 million, compared with 25% of employees. Only 6% of contractors and employed physicians reported a net wealth of over $5 million, compared with 13% of self-employed physicians.

Self-employed physicians also managed their personal expenses slightly differently. They were more likely to pool their income with their spouse in a common account used for bills and expenses, regardless of how much they each earned (63% of self-employed respondents, compared with 58% of employees and 50% of independent contractors).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-employed physicians also reported having the largest homes, with an average square footage of 3,629 square feet, compared with 3,023 square feet for employees and 2,984 square feet for independent contractors. Self-employed physicians’ mortgages (average, $240,389) were similar to those of employed physicians’ mortgages but were higher than those of independent contractors’ mortgages (average, $213,740).

Self-employed physicians were also most likely to highly appraise their own performance: Half of all self-employed respondents felt “very satisfied” with their job performance, compared with 40% of employees and 44% of independent contractors.

When asked what they consider to be the most rewarding aspect of their job, self-employed physicians were more likely to choose gratitude and patient relationships than their peers (32%, compared with 26% of employees and 19% of independent contractors).

Despite their higher net wealth and larger salaries, self-employed physicians were least likely to feel fairly compensated; 49% of self-employed physicians said they did not feel fairly compensated for their work, compared with 40% of employees and 40% of independent contractors.

“Self-employed physicians may be better compensated than others of the same specialty who are employees, so some of that may be perception,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Or they feel they should be compensated to a far greater degree than those who are employed.”

Self-employed physicians were also more likely to respond that they would choose the same practice setting again, though across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for employed physicians

About a third (32%) of employed physician respondents work in hospitals; 28% work in private practices.

Employed physicians were most likely to report a salary increase from 2018 to 2019: 74%, compared with 45% of self-employed and 52% of independent contractors.

As for declines in income, self-employed physicians and independent contractors suffered a comparable loss, with 13% and 12% of them, respectively, reporting salary cuts greater than 10%. Decreases of up to 10% were felt mostly by the self-employed, with 17% experiencing such cuts, compared with 7% of employees and 10% of independent contractors.

In contrast, employees were the least likely of the three categories to have incurred large financial losses over the past year: 77% of employed respondents indicated that they had not experienced any significant financial losses in the past year, compared with 63% of self-employed physicians and 63% of independent contractors. They were also least likely to have made any investments at all over the past year – 21% of employees reported having made none at all in 2019, compared to 11% of self-employed physicians and 16% of independent contractors.
 

The financial and work picture for independent contractors

Just over half (52%) of all independent contractors who responded to our questionnaire work in hospitals, 15% work in group practices, 9% work in outpatient clinics, and just 2% work in solo practices.

Independent contractors were less likely than their peers to have received employment benefits such as health insurance, malpractice coverage, and paid time off. They were also less likely to be saving for retirement. Almost half (45%) of independent contractors said they received no employment benefits at all, compared to 20% of self-employed physicians and just 8% of employees.

What’s more, 27% of independent contractors do not currently put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred college savings account on a regular basis, compared with 16% of self-employed physicians and 8% of employees. Similarly, they were less likely to put money into a taxable savings account (39% responded that they do not, compared with 32% of self-employed physicians and 27% of employees).

“Net worth and retirement funding findings do line up with what I’ve observed,” said Mr. Scroggins. “Those who have independent practices as opposed to working for a hospital do tend to more heavily fund retirement plan accounts, which is typically the biggest driver of building net worth.”

Despite the lack of retirement planning, independent contractors were more likely than their peers to derive satisfaction from making money at a job they like (18%, compared with 12% of employees and 11% of self-employed physicians). They’re also far more likely to be in emergency medicine (22% of independent contractors, compared with 3% of self-employed and 5% of employees) or psychiatry (11% of independent contractors, compared with 5% of self-employed and 6% of employees).

Among the three categories of physicians, independent contractors were least likely to say that they would choose the same practice setting again. Across all three categories, fewer than 50% of respondents would do so: 34% of self-employed physicians, compared with 29% of employees and 28% of independent contractors.

Physicians who are considering leaving their own practice for a hospital setting should do so with caution and fully understand what they are getting into, said Mr. Scroggins. “If they’re just looking at compensation, they also should be looking very carefully at retirement plan benefits. If that’s their main method of saving and building net worth, then that’s a dramatic difference.”

And of course, there’s always the intangible value of feeling connected to a practice and its patients: “Physicians got into this line of work to treat patients and help people become healthier, and in hospitals they end up being more disconnected from their patients,” Mr. Scroggins said. “That’s a big factor as well.”

Editor’s note: Only differences that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level between categories of employment have been included. Of the 13,893 responses included in this analysis, 3,860 physicians identified as self-employed, 9,262 as employees, and 772 as independent contractors.

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

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obesity also were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in this observational study of 11,721 adults. History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.

One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative. 

The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
 

COVID-19 and comorbidities

“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.

With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.

In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.

Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.

“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.

Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.

This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
 

Key findings

A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.

Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).

“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.

The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.  

Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).

When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
 

Mechanical ventilation and mortality

Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.

Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.

People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.

Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
 

COVID-19 therapies?

Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.

The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.

“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.

Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.

A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.

The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.

The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”

The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.

“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
 

Some limitations

“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.

On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.” 

Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The STAT3 pathway is important to the development of many cancers, but so far, no Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs are ready for clinical use. Napabucasin, a novel oral small-molecule inhibitor of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), blocks tumor growth and resists metastasis in a broad spectrum of solid tumors. Napabucasin was now found to be effective in inhibiting diffuse large beta cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in cell lines and in in vitro testing, as reported by Xue Li of the West China Hospital, Sichuan (China) University, and colleagues.

In addition, the effects of napabucasin were found to be synergistic with the use of doxorubicin, a standard DLBCL therapy agent, according to the report, published online in Cancer Letters.
 

‘Dramatic’ results

The researchers found that 34% (23/69) of DLBCL patients expressed STAT3 in tumor tissues. When they tested napabucasin in a variety of DLBCL cell lines they found that the drug exhibited potent cytotoxicity in a dose-dependent manner. In addition, they found that napabucasin induced intrinsic and extrinsic cell apoptosis, downregulated the expression of STAT3 target genes, including the antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1, and regulated the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, all important indicators of antitumor effectiveness in vitro.

In cells treated with napabucasin and doxorubicin alone and in combination, napabucasin alone significantly suppressed tumor growth, compared with that of the control (P < .01), achieving tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 78.8%. The combination treatment, “with a dramatic TGI of 98.2%,” was more effective than doxorubicin monotherapy (TGI = 63.2%; P < .05), according to the researchers.

“Our study provided evidence that napabucasin is an attractive candidate drug either as a monotherapy or in combination therapies for DLBCL treatment. Further work studying the clinical efficacy and combination treatment schedule should be performed for personalized therapy,” the researchers concluded.

The work was supported by grants from the Chinese government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li X et al. Cancer Lett. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.07.032.

The STAT3 pathway is important to the development of many cancers, but so far, no Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs are ready for clinical use. Napabucasin, a novel oral small-molecule inhibitor of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), blocks tumor growth and resists metastasis in a broad spectrum of solid tumors. Napabucasin was now found to be effective in inhibiting diffuse large beta cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in cell lines and in in vitro testing, as reported by Xue Li of the West China Hospital, Sichuan (China) University, and colleagues.

In addition, the effects of napabucasin were found to be synergistic with the use of doxorubicin, a standard DLBCL therapy agent, according to the report, published online in Cancer Letters.
 

‘Dramatic’ results

The researchers found that 34% (23/69) of DLBCL patients expressed STAT3 in tumor tissues. When they tested napabucasin in a variety of DLBCL cell lines they found that the drug exhibited potent cytotoxicity in a dose-dependent manner. In addition, they found that napabucasin induced intrinsic and extrinsic cell apoptosis, downregulated the expression of STAT3 target genes, including the antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1, and regulated the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, all important indicators of antitumor effectiveness in vitro.

In cells treated with napabucasin and doxorubicin alone and in combination, napabucasin alone significantly suppressed tumor growth, compared with that of the control (P < .01), achieving tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 78.8%. The combination treatment, “with a dramatic TGI of 98.2%,” was more effective than doxorubicin monotherapy (TGI = 63.2%; P < .05), according to the researchers.

“Our study provided evidence that napabucasin is an attractive candidate drug either as a monotherapy or in combination therapies for DLBCL treatment. Further work studying the clinical efficacy and combination treatment schedule should be performed for personalized therapy,” the researchers concluded.

The work was supported by grants from the Chinese government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li X et al. Cancer Lett. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.07.032.

The STAT3 pathway is important to the development of many cancers, but so far, no Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs are ready for clinical use. Napabucasin, a novel oral small-molecule inhibitor of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3), blocks tumor growth and resists metastasis in a broad spectrum of solid tumors. Napabucasin was now found to be effective in inhibiting diffuse large beta cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in cell lines and in in vitro testing, as reported by Xue Li of the West China Hospital, Sichuan (China) University, and colleagues.

In addition, the effects of napabucasin were found to be synergistic with the use of doxorubicin, a standard DLBCL therapy agent, according to the report, published online in Cancer Letters.
 

‘Dramatic’ results

The researchers found that 34% (23/69) of DLBCL patients expressed STAT3 in tumor tissues. When they tested napabucasin in a variety of DLBCL cell lines they found that the drug exhibited potent cytotoxicity in a dose-dependent manner. In addition, they found that napabucasin induced intrinsic and extrinsic cell apoptosis, downregulated the expression of STAT3 target genes, including the antiapoptotic protein Mcl-1, and regulated the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, all important indicators of antitumor effectiveness in vitro.

In cells treated with napabucasin and doxorubicin alone and in combination, napabucasin alone significantly suppressed tumor growth, compared with that of the control (P < .01), achieving tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 78.8%. The combination treatment, “with a dramatic TGI of 98.2%,” was more effective than doxorubicin monotherapy (TGI = 63.2%; P < .05), according to the researchers.

“Our study provided evidence that napabucasin is an attractive candidate drug either as a monotherapy or in combination therapies for DLBCL treatment. Further work studying the clinical efficacy and combination treatment schedule should be performed for personalized therapy,” the researchers concluded.

The work was supported by grants from the Chinese government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Li X et al. Cancer Lett. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.07.032.

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Child cases moved up to 9.5% of the cumulative COVID-19 population as the United States added almost 44,000 pediatric cases for the week ending Aug. 27, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new cases bring the cumulative number of infected children to over 476,000, and that figure represents 9.5% of the over 5 million COVID-19 cases reported among all ages, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report. The cumulative number of children covers 49 states (New York is not reporting age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

From lowest to highest, the states occupying opposite ends of the cumulative proportion spectrum are New Jersey at 3.4% – New York City was lower with a 3.2% figure but is not a state – and Wyoming at 18.3%, the report showed.

Children represent more than 15% of all reported COVID-19 cases in five other states: Tennessee (17.1%), North Dakota (16.0%), Alaska (15.9%), New Mexico (15.7%), and Minnesota (15.1%). The states just above New Jersey are Florida (5.8%), Connecticut (5.9%), and Massachusetts (6.7%). Texas has a rate of 5.6% but has reported age for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Children make up a much lower share of COVID-19 hospitalizations – 1.7% of the cumulative number for all ages – although that figure has been slowly rising over the course of the pandemic: it was 1.2% on July 9 and 0.9% on May 8. Arizona (4.1%) is the highest of the 22 states reporting age for hospitalizations and Hawaii (0.6%) is the lowest, based on the AAP/CHA data.

Mortality figures for children continue to be even lower. Nationwide, 0.07% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in children, and 19 of the 43 states reporting age distributions have had no deaths yet. Pediatric deaths totaled 101 as of Aug. 27, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

Child cases moved up to 9.5% of the cumulative COVID-19 population as the United States added almost 44,000 pediatric cases for the week ending Aug. 27, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new cases bring the cumulative number of infected children to over 476,000, and that figure represents 9.5% of the over 5 million COVID-19 cases reported among all ages, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report. The cumulative number of children covers 49 states (New York is not reporting age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

From lowest to highest, the states occupying opposite ends of the cumulative proportion spectrum are New Jersey at 3.4% – New York City was lower with a 3.2% figure but is not a state – and Wyoming at 18.3%, the report showed.

Children represent more than 15% of all reported COVID-19 cases in five other states: Tennessee (17.1%), North Dakota (16.0%), Alaska (15.9%), New Mexico (15.7%), and Minnesota (15.1%). The states just above New Jersey are Florida (5.8%), Connecticut (5.9%), and Massachusetts (6.7%). Texas has a rate of 5.6% but has reported age for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Children make up a much lower share of COVID-19 hospitalizations – 1.7% of the cumulative number for all ages – although that figure has been slowly rising over the course of the pandemic: it was 1.2% on July 9 and 0.9% on May 8. Arizona (4.1%) is the highest of the 22 states reporting age for hospitalizations and Hawaii (0.6%) is the lowest, based on the AAP/CHA data.

Mortality figures for children continue to be even lower. Nationwide, 0.07% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in children, and 19 of the 43 states reporting age distributions have had no deaths yet. Pediatric deaths totaled 101 as of Aug. 27, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

Child cases moved up to 9.5% of the cumulative COVID-19 population as the United States added almost 44,000 pediatric cases for the week ending Aug. 27, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new cases bring the cumulative number of infected children to over 476,000, and that figure represents 9.5% of the over 5 million COVID-19 cases reported among all ages, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report. The cumulative number of children covers 49 states (New York is not reporting age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

From lowest to highest, the states occupying opposite ends of the cumulative proportion spectrum are New Jersey at 3.4% – New York City was lower with a 3.2% figure but is not a state – and Wyoming at 18.3%, the report showed.

Children represent more than 15% of all reported COVID-19 cases in five other states: Tennessee (17.1%), North Dakota (16.0%), Alaska (15.9%), New Mexico (15.7%), and Minnesota (15.1%). The states just above New Jersey are Florida (5.8%), Connecticut (5.9%), and Massachusetts (6.7%). Texas has a rate of 5.6% but has reported age for only 8% of confirmed cases, the AAP and CHA noted.

Children make up a much lower share of COVID-19 hospitalizations – 1.7% of the cumulative number for all ages – although that figure has been slowly rising over the course of the pandemic: it was 1.2% on July 9 and 0.9% on May 8. Arizona (4.1%) is the highest of the 22 states reporting age for hospitalizations and Hawaii (0.6%) is the lowest, based on the AAP/CHA data.

Mortality figures for children continue to be even lower. Nationwide, 0.07% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in children, and 19 of the 43 states reporting age distributions have had no deaths yet. Pediatric deaths totaled 101 as of Aug. 27, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent study that reported no association between race and in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 failed to capture broader health care inequities, according to a leading expert.

During an AGA FORWARD Program webinar, Darrell Gray II, MD, deputy director of the Center for Cancer Health Equity at Ohio State University in Columbus, noted that the study by Baligh R. Yehia, MD, and colleagues had several important limitations: specifically, a lack of data from before or after hospitalization, flawed neighborhood deprivation indices, and poorly characterized comorbidities.

While Dr. Yehia and colleagues described these limitations in their publication, Dr. Gray suggested that future studies evaluating race and health outcomes need to be “deliberate and intentional with collecting data.”

According to Dr. Gray, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the APM Research Lab paint a more accurate picture of health care inequities. The CDC, for instance, reports that people who are Black are nearly five times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19, and approximately twice as likely to die from the disease, compared with those who are White. The APM Research Lab reports an even more striking relative mortality rate for Black Americans – almost four times higher than that of White Americans.

“People of color have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, whether it be by cases, hospitalizations, or deaths,” Dr. Gray said. “We have to think about why that is, and what has led to this.”

Dr. Gray emphasized that poorer outcomes among people of color are “not necessarily biological.”

“It’s the environment and social constructs that contribute to why there’s a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and why there’s a disproportionate burden of COVID-19,” he said.

According to Dr. Gray, disparate health care outcomes can be traced back to social determinants of health, which he and his colleagues highlighted in a June comment published in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

“Although much attention has focused on the high burden of chronic disease among [people of color], which predisposes them to poor outcomes if they acquire COVID-19, there is less recognition of the nonmedical health-related social needs and social determinants of health that represent the root causes of such health disparities,” they wrote.

Social determinants of health include an array of population factors, including economic stability, social and community context, neighborhood and environment, education, and access to health care.

For each, Dr. Gray encouraged comprehensive and nuanced assessment.

“Is there access to health care?” Dr. Gray asked. “Not just access in the sense of having insurance – certainly that’s a benefit – but if someone has insurance, can they get to where the health center is? Or is that something they might have to catch three buses and a cab to get to?”

Dr. Gray said that such obstacles are not outside the scope of the medical community.

“This is not beyond our responsibility ... to address social determinants of health,” Dr. Gray said.

When asked by a webinar attendee how the medical community can tackle racism, Dr. Gray offered several practical steps to move forward.

First, he suggested that clinicians and researchers listen to affected patient populations.

“Many of us, including clinicians, have been privileged to have their blinders on, if you will, to issues of racism that have been affecting our patients for a long time,” he said.

Second, Dr. Gray encouraged those who have learned to teach others.

“You need to start teaching your peers, your colleagues, your family, and friends about how racism affects patient outcomes.”

Third, he recommended that clinicians incorporate these lessons into routine practice, whether in a private or an academic setting.

“Are there ways in which you can refer patients to address social determinants of health? Are you capturing that information in your check-in materials?” Dr. Gray asked. “If you’re an investigator, when you’re doing research – whether it’s health disparities research or other – are you looking at your research through a health equity lens? Are you asking questions about social determinants of health?”

Finally, Dr. Gray called for stronger community engagement during design and conduction of clinical trials.

“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care,” he said. “And they won’t know how much you care unless you’re visible, and unless you’re there, and these are sustainable relationships.”

The FORWARD program is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

A recent study that reported no association between race and in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 failed to capture broader health care inequities, according to a leading expert.

During an AGA FORWARD Program webinar, Darrell Gray II, MD, deputy director of the Center for Cancer Health Equity at Ohio State University in Columbus, noted that the study by Baligh R. Yehia, MD, and colleagues had several important limitations: specifically, a lack of data from before or after hospitalization, flawed neighborhood deprivation indices, and poorly characterized comorbidities.

While Dr. Yehia and colleagues described these limitations in their publication, Dr. Gray suggested that future studies evaluating race and health outcomes need to be “deliberate and intentional with collecting data.”

According to Dr. Gray, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the APM Research Lab paint a more accurate picture of health care inequities. The CDC, for instance, reports that people who are Black are nearly five times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19, and approximately twice as likely to die from the disease, compared with those who are White. The APM Research Lab reports an even more striking relative mortality rate for Black Americans – almost four times higher than that of White Americans.

“People of color have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, whether it be by cases, hospitalizations, or deaths,” Dr. Gray said. “We have to think about why that is, and what has led to this.”

Dr. Gray emphasized that poorer outcomes among people of color are “not necessarily biological.”

“It’s the environment and social constructs that contribute to why there’s a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and why there’s a disproportionate burden of COVID-19,” he said.

According to Dr. Gray, disparate health care outcomes can be traced back to social determinants of health, which he and his colleagues highlighted in a June comment published in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

“Although much attention has focused on the high burden of chronic disease among [people of color], which predisposes them to poor outcomes if they acquire COVID-19, there is less recognition of the nonmedical health-related social needs and social determinants of health that represent the root causes of such health disparities,” they wrote.

Social determinants of health include an array of population factors, including economic stability, social and community context, neighborhood and environment, education, and access to health care.

For each, Dr. Gray encouraged comprehensive and nuanced assessment.

“Is there access to health care?” Dr. Gray asked. “Not just access in the sense of having insurance – certainly that’s a benefit – but if someone has insurance, can they get to where the health center is? Or is that something they might have to catch three buses and a cab to get to?”

Dr. Gray said that such obstacles are not outside the scope of the medical community.

“This is not beyond our responsibility ... to address social determinants of health,” Dr. Gray said.

When asked by a webinar attendee how the medical community can tackle racism, Dr. Gray offered several practical steps to move forward.

First, he suggested that clinicians and researchers listen to affected patient populations.

“Many of us, including clinicians, have been privileged to have their blinders on, if you will, to issues of racism that have been affecting our patients for a long time,” he said.

Second, Dr. Gray encouraged those who have learned to teach others.

“You need to start teaching your peers, your colleagues, your family, and friends about how racism affects patient outcomes.”

Third, he recommended that clinicians incorporate these lessons into routine practice, whether in a private or an academic setting.

“Are there ways in which you can refer patients to address social determinants of health? Are you capturing that information in your check-in materials?” Dr. Gray asked. “If you’re an investigator, when you’re doing research – whether it’s health disparities research or other – are you looking at your research through a health equity lens? Are you asking questions about social determinants of health?”

Finally, Dr. Gray called for stronger community engagement during design and conduction of clinical trials.

“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care,” he said. “And they won’t know how much you care unless you’re visible, and unless you’re there, and these are sustainable relationships.”

The FORWARD program is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

A recent study that reported no association between race and in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 failed to capture broader health care inequities, according to a leading expert.

During an AGA FORWARD Program webinar, Darrell Gray II, MD, deputy director of the Center for Cancer Health Equity at Ohio State University in Columbus, noted that the study by Baligh R. Yehia, MD, and colleagues had several important limitations: specifically, a lack of data from before or after hospitalization, flawed neighborhood deprivation indices, and poorly characterized comorbidities.

While Dr. Yehia and colleagues described these limitations in their publication, Dr. Gray suggested that future studies evaluating race and health outcomes need to be “deliberate and intentional with collecting data.”

According to Dr. Gray, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the APM Research Lab paint a more accurate picture of health care inequities. The CDC, for instance, reports that people who are Black are nearly five times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19, and approximately twice as likely to die from the disease, compared with those who are White. The APM Research Lab reports an even more striking relative mortality rate for Black Americans – almost four times higher than that of White Americans.

“People of color have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, whether it be by cases, hospitalizations, or deaths,” Dr. Gray said. “We have to think about why that is, and what has led to this.”

Dr. Gray emphasized that poorer outcomes among people of color are “not necessarily biological.”

“It’s the environment and social constructs that contribute to why there’s a disproportionate burden of chronic disease and why there’s a disproportionate burden of COVID-19,” he said.

According to Dr. Gray, disparate health care outcomes can be traced back to social determinants of health, which he and his colleagues highlighted in a June comment published in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

“Although much attention has focused on the high burden of chronic disease among [people of color], which predisposes them to poor outcomes if they acquire COVID-19, there is less recognition of the nonmedical health-related social needs and social determinants of health that represent the root causes of such health disparities,” they wrote.

Social determinants of health include an array of population factors, including economic stability, social and community context, neighborhood and environment, education, and access to health care.

For each, Dr. Gray encouraged comprehensive and nuanced assessment.

“Is there access to health care?” Dr. Gray asked. “Not just access in the sense of having insurance – certainly that’s a benefit – but if someone has insurance, can they get to where the health center is? Or is that something they might have to catch three buses and a cab to get to?”

Dr. Gray said that such obstacles are not outside the scope of the medical community.

“This is not beyond our responsibility ... to address social determinants of health,” Dr. Gray said.

When asked by a webinar attendee how the medical community can tackle racism, Dr. Gray offered several practical steps to move forward.

First, he suggested that clinicians and researchers listen to affected patient populations.

“Many of us, including clinicians, have been privileged to have their blinders on, if you will, to issues of racism that have been affecting our patients for a long time,” he said.

Second, Dr. Gray encouraged those who have learned to teach others.

“You need to start teaching your peers, your colleagues, your family, and friends about how racism affects patient outcomes.”

Third, he recommended that clinicians incorporate these lessons into routine practice, whether in a private or an academic setting.

“Are there ways in which you can refer patients to address social determinants of health? Are you capturing that information in your check-in materials?” Dr. Gray asked. “If you’re an investigator, when you’re doing research – whether it’s health disparities research or other – are you looking at your research through a health equity lens? Are you asking questions about social determinants of health?”

Finally, Dr. Gray called for stronger community engagement during design and conduction of clinical trials.

“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care,” he said. “And they won’t know how much you care unless you’re visible, and unless you’re there, and these are sustainable relationships.”

The FORWARD program is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.