The Hospitalist

Background: The ability to independently perform daily activities is highly valued by patients, yet it is commonly impaired in older adults after hospitalization for MI. Risk of functional decline in this population is not well understood, but may relate to reduced mobility while hospitalized.

While in-hospital mobility is predictive of future functional decline in this population, this observational study cannot establish whether attempts to improve mobility in hospitalized patients will prevent future functional decline.

Bottom line: Lower performance on the Timed “Up and Go” test of mobility among older patients hospitalized for MI is associated with functional decline 6 months after hospitalization.

Citation: Hajduk AM et al. Association between mobility measured during hospitalization and functional outcomes in older adults with acute myocardial infarction in the SILVER-AMI study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4114.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: The ability to independently perform daily activities is highly valued by patients, yet it is commonly impaired in older adults after hospitalization for MI. Risk of functional decline in this population is not well understood, but may relate to reduced mobility while hospitalized.

While in-hospital mobility is predictive of future functional decline in this population, this observational study cannot establish whether attempts to improve mobility in hospitalized patients will prevent future functional decline.

Bottom line: Lower performance on the Timed “Up and Go” test of mobility among older patients hospitalized for MI is associated with functional decline 6 months after hospitalization.

Citation: Hajduk AM et al. Association between mobility measured during hospitalization and functional outcomes in older adults with acute myocardial infarction in the SILVER-AMI study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4114.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: The ability to independently perform daily activities is highly valued by patients, yet it is commonly impaired in older adults after hospitalization for MI. Risk of functional decline in this population is not well understood, but may relate to reduced mobility while hospitalized.

While in-hospital mobility is predictive of future functional decline in this population, this observational study cannot establish whether attempts to improve mobility in hospitalized patients will prevent future functional decline.

Bottom line: Lower performance on the Timed “Up and Go” test of mobility among older patients hospitalized for MI is associated with functional decline 6 months after hospitalization.

Citation: Hajduk AM et al. Association between mobility measured during hospitalization and functional outcomes in older adults with acute myocardial infarction in the SILVER-AMI study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4114.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.

Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.

Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.

Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.

Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.

Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.

Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.

Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.

Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.

Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.

Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

Background: Dapagliflozin is a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) in the kidney; the drug blocks glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. It is taken once daily by mouth. An initial study sponsored by AstraZeneca was published January 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine – “Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.” Until recently there was not an FDA-approved indication for the drug.

Citation: Farxiga approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes. AstraZeneca Press Release, 2019 Oct 21.

Dr. Como is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Dapagliflozin is a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) in the kidney; the drug blocks glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. It is taken once daily by mouth. An initial study sponsored by AstraZeneca was published January 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine – “Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.” Until recently there was not an FDA-approved indication for the drug.

Citation: Farxiga approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes. AstraZeneca Press Release, 2019 Oct 21.

Dr. Como is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Dapagliflozin is a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) in the kidney; the drug blocks glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. It is taken once daily by mouth. An initial study sponsored by AstraZeneca was published January 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine – “Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.” Until recently there was not an FDA-approved indication for the drug.

Citation: Farxiga approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes. AstraZeneca Press Release, 2019 Oct 21.

Dr. Como is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Clinicians should be aware that the discordance between high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays is significant enough that management recommendations may change, for example, for a patient assessed for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in one hospital and transferred to another that uses a different assay, according to a team of international researchers.

When hs-cTn concentrations were measured using the three Food and Drug Administration–approved assays, only 37.4% (384 of 1,027 samples) of blood samples were classified into the same analytical benchmark category.

“We didn’t expect such low concordance, to be honest, but I have to stress that this first assessment used just one-time blood testing and serial testing is what is more commonly recommended now,” said Júlia Karády, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

To see if concordance improved with serial testing, the researchers looked at the 242 patients for whom serial samples were available and saw concordance of management recommendations across assays rise to 74.8%.

“We tested the 0/2-hour algorithm and found that the overall agreement almost doubled, so I think that a very important message from our study is that serial testing improves the agreement between the assays in terms of clinical management and patient stratification,” said Dr. Karády.

Dr. Karády and colleagues published their findings in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers tested three assays referred to clinically as high-sensitivity assays: Elecsys 2010 platform (Roche Diagnostics); ARCHITECT i2000SR (Abbott Diagnostics); and hsVista (Siemens Diagnostics). All three have received FDA approval, starting with Elecsys in 2017.

The proportion of patients with similar management recommendations differed between the assays for both “rule-out” (87.2%, 73.1%, and 78.5% for Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively) and “observe” (9.5%, 24%, and 17.8%; both P < .001). For the purposes of “rule-in,” no difference was noted (3.3%, 2.9%, and 3.7%).

“It’s important to note that this was a highly selected population of patients with an intermediate likelihood for ACS, not an all-comer population. This group comprises about 20% of the [emergency department] population and actually is the group we struggle with the most, which is hardest to diagnose because it excludes the very low– and very high–risk patients,” said Dr. Karády.

The patients included in this study all had suspected ACS and were enrolled in the ROMICAT-I and II trials.

Among 1,027 samples from 624 patients (mean age, 52.8 years; 39.4% women), samples were classified as below the limit of detection (LOD) in 56.3%, 10.4%, and 41.2% (P < .001) by Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively.

The proportion of sample with a troponin measurement between LOD to the 99th percentile also differed significantly between the assays at 36.5%, 83.5%, and 52.6%, respectively (P < .001).

Only the proportion classified greater than 99th percentile did not differ (7.2%, 6.0%, and 6.2%; P = .114).

When the researchers looked at sex-specific difference, no differences were seen in rule-in numbers for men, but significant differences were seen for women.

“One possible explanation for this could be differences in the representation of men and women in the various reference populations used to develop the 99th percentile values for these assays,” suggested Dr. Karády.

They estimate around 30%-40% of U.S. centers are currently using high-sensitivity troponin assays and this number is “rapidly rising.”

The diagnostic algorithms developed for use with high-sensitivity assays, such as the 0/2-h algorithm, acknowledge differences in performance characteristics and recommend that assay-specific cut points be used for clinical decision-making rather than relying on generally applicable thresholds.

Joseph S. Alpert, MD, University of Arizona, Tucson, and coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the take-home message here is caveat emptor.

“First, ‘let the buyer (i.e., the clinician) beware’ when patients are transferred from one hospital to another, where different hs-cTn assays may be used,” they wrote. This is particularly true in women and in those with troponin levels in the “observe (gray zone)” clinical management recommendation.

Dr. Karády has received grant support from the Fulbright Visiting Researcher Grant and the Rosztoczy Foundation. One of the coauthors of the editorial comment consults or has consulted for most of the major diagnostic companies, including the manufacturers of the three assays tested in this study. Dr. Alpert disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Clinicians should be aware that the discordance between high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays is significant enough that management recommendations may change, for example, for a patient assessed for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in one hospital and transferred to another that uses a different assay, according to a team of international researchers.

When hs-cTn concentrations were measured using the three Food and Drug Administration–approved assays, only 37.4% (384 of 1,027 samples) of blood samples were classified into the same analytical benchmark category.

“We didn’t expect such low concordance, to be honest, but I have to stress that this first assessment used just one-time blood testing and serial testing is what is more commonly recommended now,” said Júlia Karády, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

To see if concordance improved with serial testing, the researchers looked at the 242 patients for whom serial samples were available and saw concordance of management recommendations across assays rise to 74.8%.

“We tested the 0/2-hour algorithm and found that the overall agreement almost doubled, so I think that a very important message from our study is that serial testing improves the agreement between the assays in terms of clinical management and patient stratification,” said Dr. Karády.

Dr. Karády and colleagues published their findings in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers tested three assays referred to clinically as high-sensitivity assays: Elecsys 2010 platform (Roche Diagnostics); ARCHITECT i2000SR (Abbott Diagnostics); and hsVista (Siemens Diagnostics). All three have received FDA approval, starting with Elecsys in 2017.

The proportion of patients with similar management recommendations differed between the assays for both “rule-out” (87.2%, 73.1%, and 78.5% for Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively) and “observe” (9.5%, 24%, and 17.8%; both P < .001). For the purposes of “rule-in,” no difference was noted (3.3%, 2.9%, and 3.7%).

“It’s important to note that this was a highly selected population of patients with an intermediate likelihood for ACS, not an all-comer population. This group comprises about 20% of the [emergency department] population and actually is the group we struggle with the most, which is hardest to diagnose because it excludes the very low– and very high–risk patients,” said Dr. Karády.

The patients included in this study all had suspected ACS and were enrolled in the ROMICAT-I and II trials.

Among 1,027 samples from 624 patients (mean age, 52.8 years; 39.4% women), samples were classified as below the limit of detection (LOD) in 56.3%, 10.4%, and 41.2% (P < .001) by Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively.

The proportion of sample with a troponin measurement between LOD to the 99th percentile also differed significantly between the assays at 36.5%, 83.5%, and 52.6%, respectively (P < .001).

Only the proportion classified greater than 99th percentile did not differ (7.2%, 6.0%, and 6.2%; P = .114).

When the researchers looked at sex-specific difference, no differences were seen in rule-in numbers for men, but significant differences were seen for women.

“One possible explanation for this could be differences in the representation of men and women in the various reference populations used to develop the 99th percentile values for these assays,” suggested Dr. Karády.

They estimate around 30%-40% of U.S. centers are currently using high-sensitivity troponin assays and this number is “rapidly rising.”

The diagnostic algorithms developed for use with high-sensitivity assays, such as the 0/2-h algorithm, acknowledge differences in performance characteristics and recommend that assay-specific cut points be used for clinical decision-making rather than relying on generally applicable thresholds.

Joseph S. Alpert, MD, University of Arizona, Tucson, and coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the take-home message here is caveat emptor.

“First, ‘let the buyer (i.e., the clinician) beware’ when patients are transferred from one hospital to another, where different hs-cTn assays may be used,” they wrote. This is particularly true in women and in those with troponin levels in the “observe (gray zone)” clinical management recommendation.

Dr. Karády has received grant support from the Fulbright Visiting Researcher Grant and the Rosztoczy Foundation. One of the coauthors of the editorial comment consults or has consulted for most of the major diagnostic companies, including the manufacturers of the three assays tested in this study. Dr. Alpert disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Clinicians should be aware that the discordance between high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays is significant enough that management recommendations may change, for example, for a patient assessed for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in one hospital and transferred to another that uses a different assay, according to a team of international researchers.

When hs-cTn concentrations were measured using the three Food and Drug Administration–approved assays, only 37.4% (384 of 1,027 samples) of blood samples were classified into the same analytical benchmark category.

“We didn’t expect such low concordance, to be honest, but I have to stress that this first assessment used just one-time blood testing and serial testing is what is more commonly recommended now,” said Júlia Karády, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

To see if concordance improved with serial testing, the researchers looked at the 242 patients for whom serial samples were available and saw concordance of management recommendations across assays rise to 74.8%.

“We tested the 0/2-hour algorithm and found that the overall agreement almost doubled, so I think that a very important message from our study is that serial testing improves the agreement between the assays in terms of clinical management and patient stratification,” said Dr. Karády.

Dr. Karády and colleagues published their findings in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers tested three assays referred to clinically as high-sensitivity assays: Elecsys 2010 platform (Roche Diagnostics); ARCHITECT i2000SR (Abbott Diagnostics); and hsVista (Siemens Diagnostics). All three have received FDA approval, starting with Elecsys in 2017.

The proportion of patients with similar management recommendations differed between the assays for both “rule-out” (87.2%, 73.1%, and 78.5% for Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively) and “observe” (9.5%, 24%, and 17.8%; both P < .001). For the purposes of “rule-in,” no difference was noted (3.3%, 2.9%, and 3.7%).

“It’s important to note that this was a highly selected population of patients with an intermediate likelihood for ACS, not an all-comer population. This group comprises about 20% of the [emergency department] population and actually is the group we struggle with the most, which is hardest to diagnose because it excludes the very low– and very high–risk patients,” said Dr. Karády.

The patients included in this study all had suspected ACS and were enrolled in the ROMICAT-I and II trials.

Among 1,027 samples from 624 patients (mean age, 52.8 years; 39.4% women), samples were classified as below the limit of detection (LOD) in 56.3%, 10.4%, and 41.2% (P < .001) by Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively.

The proportion of sample with a troponin measurement between LOD to the 99th percentile also differed significantly between the assays at 36.5%, 83.5%, and 52.6%, respectively (P < .001).

Only the proportion classified greater than 99th percentile did not differ (7.2%, 6.0%, and 6.2%; P = .114).

When the researchers looked at sex-specific difference, no differences were seen in rule-in numbers for men, but significant differences were seen for women.

“One possible explanation for this could be differences in the representation of men and women in the various reference populations used to develop the 99th percentile values for these assays,” suggested Dr. Karády.

They estimate around 30%-40% of U.S. centers are currently using high-sensitivity troponin assays and this number is “rapidly rising.”

The diagnostic algorithms developed for use with high-sensitivity assays, such as the 0/2-h algorithm, acknowledge differences in performance characteristics and recommend that assay-specific cut points be used for clinical decision-making rather than relying on generally applicable thresholds.

Joseph S. Alpert, MD, University of Arizona, Tucson, and coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the take-home message here is caveat emptor.

“First, ‘let the buyer (i.e., the clinician) beware’ when patients are transferred from one hospital to another, where different hs-cTn assays may be used,” they wrote. This is particularly true in women and in those with troponin levels in the “observe (gray zone)” clinical management recommendation.

Dr. Karády has received grant support from the Fulbright Visiting Researcher Grant and the Rosztoczy Foundation. One of the coauthors of the editorial comment consults or has consulted for most of the major diagnostic companies, including the manufacturers of the three assays tested in this study. Dr. Alpert disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed all aspects of the world’s health care systems. The sheer volume of pandemic-related research produced over the past year has been challenging to process. This is as it should be, given its unprecedented spread and related morbidity and mortality. However, such rapid production and application leaves little time for proper vetting. Large numbers of providers adopted suggested, but largely unproven, practices that deviated from pre–COVID-19 guidelines. These “early adopters” theorized that COVID-19–related disease processes were different, necessitating a modification to existing practices.

While many unproven approaches were suggested and implemented, I’ll focus on two approaches. First, throughout the pandemic, many have argued that COVID-19 causes a novel acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotype. Early on, a group of prominent Italian ARDS researchers made a compelling case for physiological differences, concluding that early intubation was required to avoid large transpulmonary pressure swings. The logic was that COVID-19 causes significant gas-exchange abnormality without the typical effect on elastance. The resulting increase in respiratory drive would generate vigorous inspiratory effort, overstretch a relatively compliant lung, and lead to further injury.

Other equally prominent researchers countered this argument. Martin Tobin drew on physiology, while Arthur Slutsky and Niall Ferguson used emerging data to make their case. Tobin and colleagues cautioned against early intubation for anyone who could be maintained using noninvasive support. In August 2020 (well into the pandemic and after more data were available), Slutsky and colleagues argued that ARDS caused by COVID-19 wasn’t much different from lung injury due to other causes.

Two more recent studies published online recently are relevant to the debate over COVID-19 ARDS. One was a prospective study and the other a retrospective study; both had comparison groups, and both came to the same conclusions. Overall, COVID-19 ARDS isn’t much different from ARDS due to other causes. These studies were comprehensive in their comparisons and measures of outcomes, but they were both rather small and included patients from one and two hospitals, respectively. The discussions of both provide a nice review of the existing literature on COVID-19 ARDS.

A second controversial, but unproven, COVID-19 practice is aggressive anticoagulation. Early reports of a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pushed many to recommend empirically increasing prophylaxis. Most of the data guiding this approach were from retrospective, observational studies that suffered from selection bias. Early on, many of the studies were from China, where baseline VTE prophylaxis rates were low. Despite these limitations, many physicians acted on the basis of these data. An arbitrarily defined “intermediate” or treatment dose for prophylaxis was used, with some measuring D-dimer to guide their approach. An evidence-based argument against this practice, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to sway readers. (Look at the poll at the end of the article and you’ll see how readers answered.)

Two articles recently published online in CHEST attempted to bring clarity to the debate over COVID-19 and VTE prophylaxis. The first study evaluated critically ill patients in France, and researchers found that higher doses of anticoagulation reduced thrombotic complications without an associated increase in bleeding events. The study is well done but certainly has its flaws. It is observational and retrospective, and it essentially uses a before-after comparison technique. Such an approach is particularly prone to bias during COVID-19, given that practice patterns change quickly.

The second paper is a systematic review looking at VTE and bleeding rates among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The authors found high rates of VTE (17.0% overall), with screening, admission to the ICU, and the prospective study design all being associated with increased rates. Of importance, unlike the retrospective trial cited in the previous paragraph, the authors of the systematic review found treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with higher bleeding rates.

I admit, the title of this piece is a bit of a misnomer. The “late adopters” would truly have their revenge if deviation from guidelines for COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE prophylaxis proves to be harmful. It’s not clear that’s the case, and at least for VTE prophylaxis, results from several randomized, controlled trials (REMAP-CAP, ATTACC, and ACTIV-4a) will be released soon. These are sure to provide more definitive answers. If nothing else, the COVID-19–related ARDS and VTE data reinforce how difficult it is to obtain high-quality data that yield clear results. Until something more definitive is published and released, I will remain a “late adopter.” Standard non–COVID-19 guidelines for ARDS and VTE prophylaxis are good enough for me.

Dr. Holley is program director of the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Fellowship at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who experience inflammation of the thyroid gland during acute COVID-19 illness may still have subacute thyroiditis months later, even if thyroid function has normalized, new research suggests.

Furthermore, the thyroiditis seems to be different from thyroid inflammation caused by other viruses, said Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, when presenting her findings March 21 at the virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“SARS-CoV-2 seems to have multifactorial action on thyroid function,” said Dr. Muller, of the University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy.

In July 2020, Dr. Muller and colleagues described patients hospitalized at their institution with severe COVID-19, 15% of whom had thyrotoxicosis due to atypical subacute thyroiditis, compared with just 1% of a comparison group hospitalized in the same subintensive care units during the spring of 2019, as reported by this news organization.

The “atypical” thyroiditis that occurred in the patients with COVID-19 was not associated with neck pain and affected more men than women. Moreover, it was associated with low TSH and free-triiodothyronine (T3) levels, and normal or elevated levels of free-thyroxine (T4), which is a very different presentation to classic nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) usually seen in critically ill patients, she explained.

Although transient T4 elevations can occur in acute illness, that phenomenon is not associated with low TSH. This newly described scenario appears to be a combination of thyrotoxicosis and NTIS, Dr. Muller and colleagues had speculated last summer.
 

Follow patients with COVID-19 and thyroid dysfunction for a year

Now, in an assessment of 51 patients 3 months after hospitalization for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 reported by Dr. Muller at ENDO 2021, both inflammatory markers and thyroid function had normalized, yet on imaging, a third of patients still exhibited focal hypoechoic areas suggestive of thyroiditis.

Of those, two-thirds had reduced uptake on thyroid scintigraphy, but few had antithyroid autoantibodies.

“The thyroid dysfunction induced by COVID-19 seems not mediated by autoimmunity. It is important to continue to follow these patients since they might develop thyroid dysfunction during the following months,” Dr. Muller emphasized.

Asked to comment, session moderator Robert W. Lash, MD, the Endocrine Society’s chief professional & clinical affairs officer, told this news organization: “When you’re ICU-level sick, it’s not unusual to have weird thyroid tests. Some viruses cause thyroid problems as well ... What makes this different is that while a lot of thyroid inflammation is caused by antibodies, this was not.”

“It looks like this was [SARS-CoV-2] causing damage to the thyroid gland, which is interesting,” he noted, adding that the thyroid gland expresses high levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which allow SARS-CoV-2 to infect human cells.

“This is probably part of that same story,” Dr. Lash said.  

For patients who had thyroid abnormalities during acute COVID-19 illness or develop symptoms that might be thyroid-related afterward, he advises: “You should keep an eye on thyroid tests. It just raises your awareness ... You might check their thyroid tests every 6 months for a year.”
 

Signs of focal thyroiditis despite normalized thyroid function

The 51 patients (33 men and 18 women) hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 had no history of thyroid disease and had not been taking thyroid medications, amiodarone, or steroids before baseline TSH was measured.

From baseline to 3 months, TSH rose from 1.2 to 1.6 mIU/L, while serum concentrations of T4, T3, C-reactive protein, and full blood counts had all normalized (all P < 0.01 vs. baseline).

Thyroid ultrasound at 3 months in 49 patients showed signs of focal thyroiditis in 16 (33%).

Among 14 patients of those who further underwent thyroid 99mTc or I123 uptake scans, four (29%) were normal, eight (57%) had focally reduced uptake, and two (14%) had diffusely reduced uptake.

Of the 16 patients with focal thyroiditis, only three were positive for autoantibodies to thyroglobulin (TgAb) or thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb). All were negative for autoantibodies to the TSH receptor.

“Importantly, of the two with diffusely reduced uptake, only one was positive for TPOAb or TgAb,” Dr. Muller noted, adding, “SARS-CoV-2 disease seems to trigger some dysfunction which very likely has complex and multifactorial mechanisms.”

In response to a question about a possible role for biopsies and thyroid cytology, Dr. Muller replied: “That’s definitely the key ... So far we’re just making guesses, so the key will be cytological or histological studies to see what is really going on in the thyroid.”

“What we know is that [unlike] classical thyroiditis that has been described after viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2, these patients have a different scenario ... Probably something is going on within the thyroid with a different mechanism, so surely cytology and histology studies are what we need,” she concluded.

The study was funded by Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and by a COVID-19 research grant from the European Society of Endocrinology. Dr. Muller and Dr. Lash have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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