User login
The Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management® is an independent, peer-reviewed journal offering evidence-based, practical information for improving the quality, safety, and value of health care.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
FDA approves new immunotherapy for endometrial cancer
Use limited to patients with biomarker
Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.
The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”
The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.
The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.
The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.
Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.
Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.
The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.
In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use limited to patients with biomarker
Use limited to patients with biomarker
Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.
The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”
The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.
The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.
The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.
Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.
Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.
The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.
In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.
The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”
The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.
The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.
The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.
Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.
Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.
The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.
In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hispanic diabetes patients receive less guideline-based care
based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.
Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.
Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.
To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.
Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).
Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.
Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities
“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.
“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.
“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”
However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
Focus on equitable early intervention
“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”
To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.
“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.
Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview.
“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted.
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area.
“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted.
The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said.
“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.
The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.
Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.
Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.
To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.
Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).
Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.
Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities
“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.
“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.
“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”
However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
Focus on equitable early intervention
“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”
To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.
“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.
Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview.
“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted.
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area.
“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted.
The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said.
“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.
The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.
Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.
Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.
To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.
Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).
Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.
Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities
“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.
“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.
“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”
However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
Focus on equitable early intervention
“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”
To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.
“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.
Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview.
“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted.
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area.
“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted.
The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said.
“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.
The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM SGIM 2021
COVID plus MI confers poor prognosis; 1 in 3 die in hospital
COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.
“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.
The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.
“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.
The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.
The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate
The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls).
This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.
The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.
These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.
The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.
COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.
Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).
The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.
Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.
“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.
“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.
Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.
This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.
“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.
The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.
“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.
The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.
The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate
The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls).
This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.
The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.
These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.
The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.
COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.
Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).
The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.
Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.
“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.
“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.
Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.
This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.
“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.
The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.
“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.
The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.
The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate
The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls).
This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.
The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.
These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.
The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.
COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.
Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).
The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.
Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.
“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.
“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.
Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.
This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The neurology of long-haul COVID-19
Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.
Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19
Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.
To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.
Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
A panoply of different syndromes
In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.
Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.
One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
Looking for biologic markers
An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.
A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.
Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
The research task ahead
The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.
Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”
Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.
Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.
Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19
Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.
To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.
Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
A panoply of different syndromes
In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.
Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.
One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
Looking for biologic markers
An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.
A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.
Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
The research task ahead
The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.
Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”
Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.
Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.
Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19
Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.
To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.
Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
A panoply of different syndromes
In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.
Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.
One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
Looking for biologic markers
An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.
A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.
Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
The research task ahead
The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.
Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”
Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2021
AHA statement on obesity emphasizes abdominal fat, AFib
An updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the role of obesity in cardiovascular disease provides the first new guidance in 15 years, drawing on evidence that’s emerged in that time to clarify the potential of newer drug therapies and interventions like bariatric surgery and lifestyle modifications to curtail cardiovascular disease risks.
“The timing of this information is important because the obesity epidemic contributes significantly to the global burden of cardiovascular disease and numerous chronic health conditions that also impact heart disease,” said Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, chair of the volunteer statement writing group.
“One of the big takeaways that I hope people get from the statement is really making it clear that obesity is a complex disease, and that it is multifactorial,” Dr. Powell-Wiley said in an interview. “There are not just biological reasons why individuals have obesity, but there are environmental, psychosocial, and really multilevel factors that contribute to the development and course of obesity.”
Most significantly, Dr. Powell-Wiley said, “we want to emphasize that we really want to have cardiologists think about and focus on abdominal obesity in particular.”
A metric for cardiovascular risk that seems to gain credibility in the statement is the relationship of waist circumference to height regardless of overall weight. “That is a very important finding that we can now really think of waist circumference as an important measure in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory in the division of intramural research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. “We want to get across to providers that this is something that should be measured and should be followed over time, based on data from the last 15 years that waist circumference and abdominal obesity are associated with higher cardiovascular risk regardless of body mass index.”
The statement provides potentially groundbreaking advice on atrial fibrillation as a consequence of weight, noted Dr. Powell-Wiley. “Up until recently, we haven’t really thought about weight management as a part of managing Afib [atrial fibrillation],” she said. “This statement highlights the need to think about weight management in addition to anticoagulation as part of the pieces for managing Afib.”
Evidence on interventions
The statement, published in Circulation, also dives into the evidence surrounding the varied interventions for managing weight.
“The biggest area where there’s much more data is bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley. “There’s clear evidence that bariatric surgery lowers cardio mortality and all-cause mortality for patients, but we’ve also seen data around lifestyle interventions, with the Look AHEAD trial, which showed that while there were improvements in CV [cardiovascular] risk factors, we didn’t see the reduction in CV mortality that we wanted to see.”
The statement noted that the Look AHEAD trial (for Action for Health in Diabetes) of people with type 2 diabetes failed to show a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events or CV mortality after almost 10 years of an intensive weight-loss intervention. Dr. Powell-Wiley added that the result seemed to be related more to the lack of weight loss with lifestyle interventions when compared with bariatric surgery.
The statement also addressed the effectiveness of drug treatments for weight control in managing CV risk, and while the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy specifically for weight loss has been mixed, emerging treatments have shown promise, Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “I think we now have some bright spots with new therapies that have been developed for diabetes and heart failure, such as the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the GLP-1 agonists, and how they can also appear to improve weight and likely will improve CV mortality in patients with obesity.”
The “obesity paradox,” which Dr. Powell-Wiley noted is “definitely a controversial topic,” is also addressed in the statement. “We try to explain what it is and what we know about it right now,” she said. “We know for instance that patients with obesity, particularly those who have class 1 obesity or patients who are overweight, seem to do better in the short term in relation to coronary artery disease and heart failure, but the reasons for that are not necessarily clear.”
The statement also provides evidence-based insights on the use of diagnostic tools, including stress echocardiography and cardiac MRI as well as coronary angiography, and the clinical significance of specific echocardiographic changes in obese patients.
The writing committee also identified areas that need future research. “It’s really important to emphasize what we learned about the complexity of obesity over this time period,” Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “But again, we don’t have all the answers; there’s a lot more work to be done to understand what type of lifestyle intervention might be most beneficial, especially with addressing abdominal obesity, and how these new therapeutics around heart failure and diabetes may be useful in patients with obesity.
Obesity in adolescents is another area that needs further research, Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “How do we prevent obesity in those populations when we know they’re at risk for so much as they get older? Once you have obesity it’s hard to change that trajectory.”
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and the Stroke Council. Committee vice chair Paul Poirier, MD, PhD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and HLS Therapeutics. One committee member disclosed a financial relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Powell-Wiley and the other committee members have no relationships to disclose.
An updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the role of obesity in cardiovascular disease provides the first new guidance in 15 years, drawing on evidence that’s emerged in that time to clarify the potential of newer drug therapies and interventions like bariatric surgery and lifestyle modifications to curtail cardiovascular disease risks.
“The timing of this information is important because the obesity epidemic contributes significantly to the global burden of cardiovascular disease and numerous chronic health conditions that also impact heart disease,” said Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, chair of the volunteer statement writing group.
“One of the big takeaways that I hope people get from the statement is really making it clear that obesity is a complex disease, and that it is multifactorial,” Dr. Powell-Wiley said in an interview. “There are not just biological reasons why individuals have obesity, but there are environmental, psychosocial, and really multilevel factors that contribute to the development and course of obesity.”
Most significantly, Dr. Powell-Wiley said, “we want to emphasize that we really want to have cardiologists think about and focus on abdominal obesity in particular.”
A metric for cardiovascular risk that seems to gain credibility in the statement is the relationship of waist circumference to height regardless of overall weight. “That is a very important finding that we can now really think of waist circumference as an important measure in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory in the division of intramural research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. “We want to get across to providers that this is something that should be measured and should be followed over time, based on data from the last 15 years that waist circumference and abdominal obesity are associated with higher cardiovascular risk regardless of body mass index.”
The statement provides potentially groundbreaking advice on atrial fibrillation as a consequence of weight, noted Dr. Powell-Wiley. “Up until recently, we haven’t really thought about weight management as a part of managing Afib [atrial fibrillation],” she said. “This statement highlights the need to think about weight management in addition to anticoagulation as part of the pieces for managing Afib.”
Evidence on interventions
The statement, published in Circulation, also dives into the evidence surrounding the varied interventions for managing weight.
“The biggest area where there’s much more data is bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley. “There’s clear evidence that bariatric surgery lowers cardio mortality and all-cause mortality for patients, but we’ve also seen data around lifestyle interventions, with the Look AHEAD trial, which showed that while there were improvements in CV [cardiovascular] risk factors, we didn’t see the reduction in CV mortality that we wanted to see.”
The statement noted that the Look AHEAD trial (for Action for Health in Diabetes) of people with type 2 diabetes failed to show a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events or CV mortality after almost 10 years of an intensive weight-loss intervention. Dr. Powell-Wiley added that the result seemed to be related more to the lack of weight loss with lifestyle interventions when compared with bariatric surgery.
The statement also addressed the effectiveness of drug treatments for weight control in managing CV risk, and while the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy specifically for weight loss has been mixed, emerging treatments have shown promise, Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “I think we now have some bright spots with new therapies that have been developed for diabetes and heart failure, such as the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the GLP-1 agonists, and how they can also appear to improve weight and likely will improve CV mortality in patients with obesity.”
The “obesity paradox,” which Dr. Powell-Wiley noted is “definitely a controversial topic,” is also addressed in the statement. “We try to explain what it is and what we know about it right now,” she said. “We know for instance that patients with obesity, particularly those who have class 1 obesity or patients who are overweight, seem to do better in the short term in relation to coronary artery disease and heart failure, but the reasons for that are not necessarily clear.”
The statement also provides evidence-based insights on the use of diagnostic tools, including stress echocardiography and cardiac MRI as well as coronary angiography, and the clinical significance of specific echocardiographic changes in obese patients.
The writing committee also identified areas that need future research. “It’s really important to emphasize what we learned about the complexity of obesity over this time period,” Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “But again, we don’t have all the answers; there’s a lot more work to be done to understand what type of lifestyle intervention might be most beneficial, especially with addressing abdominal obesity, and how these new therapeutics around heart failure and diabetes may be useful in patients with obesity.
Obesity in adolescents is another area that needs further research, Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “How do we prevent obesity in those populations when we know they’re at risk for so much as they get older? Once you have obesity it’s hard to change that trajectory.”
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and the Stroke Council. Committee vice chair Paul Poirier, MD, PhD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and HLS Therapeutics. One committee member disclosed a financial relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Powell-Wiley and the other committee members have no relationships to disclose.
An updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the role of obesity in cardiovascular disease provides the first new guidance in 15 years, drawing on evidence that’s emerged in that time to clarify the potential of newer drug therapies and interventions like bariatric surgery and lifestyle modifications to curtail cardiovascular disease risks.
“The timing of this information is important because the obesity epidemic contributes significantly to the global burden of cardiovascular disease and numerous chronic health conditions that also impact heart disease,” said Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, chair of the volunteer statement writing group.
“One of the big takeaways that I hope people get from the statement is really making it clear that obesity is a complex disease, and that it is multifactorial,” Dr. Powell-Wiley said in an interview. “There are not just biological reasons why individuals have obesity, but there are environmental, psychosocial, and really multilevel factors that contribute to the development and course of obesity.”
Most significantly, Dr. Powell-Wiley said, “we want to emphasize that we really want to have cardiologists think about and focus on abdominal obesity in particular.”
A metric for cardiovascular risk that seems to gain credibility in the statement is the relationship of waist circumference to height regardless of overall weight. “That is a very important finding that we can now really think of waist circumference as an important measure in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, chief of the Social Determinants of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk Laboratory in the division of intramural research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. “We want to get across to providers that this is something that should be measured and should be followed over time, based on data from the last 15 years that waist circumference and abdominal obesity are associated with higher cardiovascular risk regardless of body mass index.”
The statement provides potentially groundbreaking advice on atrial fibrillation as a consequence of weight, noted Dr. Powell-Wiley. “Up until recently, we haven’t really thought about weight management as a part of managing Afib [atrial fibrillation],” she said. “This statement highlights the need to think about weight management in addition to anticoagulation as part of the pieces for managing Afib.”
Evidence on interventions
The statement, published in Circulation, also dives into the evidence surrounding the varied interventions for managing weight.
“The biggest area where there’s much more data is bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley. “There’s clear evidence that bariatric surgery lowers cardio mortality and all-cause mortality for patients, but we’ve also seen data around lifestyle interventions, with the Look AHEAD trial, which showed that while there were improvements in CV [cardiovascular] risk factors, we didn’t see the reduction in CV mortality that we wanted to see.”
The statement noted that the Look AHEAD trial (for Action for Health in Diabetes) of people with type 2 diabetes failed to show a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events or CV mortality after almost 10 years of an intensive weight-loss intervention. Dr. Powell-Wiley added that the result seemed to be related more to the lack of weight loss with lifestyle interventions when compared with bariatric surgery.
The statement also addressed the effectiveness of drug treatments for weight control in managing CV risk, and while the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy specifically for weight loss has been mixed, emerging treatments have shown promise, Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “I think we now have some bright spots with new therapies that have been developed for diabetes and heart failure, such as the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the GLP-1 agonists, and how they can also appear to improve weight and likely will improve CV mortality in patients with obesity.”
The “obesity paradox,” which Dr. Powell-Wiley noted is “definitely a controversial topic,” is also addressed in the statement. “We try to explain what it is and what we know about it right now,” she said. “We know for instance that patients with obesity, particularly those who have class 1 obesity or patients who are overweight, seem to do better in the short term in relation to coronary artery disease and heart failure, but the reasons for that are not necessarily clear.”
The statement also provides evidence-based insights on the use of diagnostic tools, including stress echocardiography and cardiac MRI as well as coronary angiography, and the clinical significance of specific echocardiographic changes in obese patients.
The writing committee also identified areas that need future research. “It’s really important to emphasize what we learned about the complexity of obesity over this time period,” Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “But again, we don’t have all the answers; there’s a lot more work to be done to understand what type of lifestyle intervention might be most beneficial, especially with addressing abdominal obesity, and how these new therapeutics around heart failure and diabetes may be useful in patients with obesity.
Obesity in adolescents is another area that needs further research, Dr. Powell-Wiley said. “How do we prevent obesity in those populations when we know they’re at risk for so much as they get older? Once you have obesity it’s hard to change that trajectory.”
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and the Stroke Council. Committee vice chair Paul Poirier, MD, PhD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and HLS Therapeutics. One committee member disclosed a financial relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Powell-Wiley and the other committee members have no relationships to disclose.
FROM CIRCULATION
PTSD linked to ischemic heart disease
A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).
The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.
“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”
The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”
The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
Increasing number of VHA users
“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.
The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.
IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.
For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.
Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.
Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.
IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.
The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.
Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).
In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)
The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).
Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.
The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.
In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.
A call to action
In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.
As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”
The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”
Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”
Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.
“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.
She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.
This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).
The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.
“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”
The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”
The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
Increasing number of VHA users
“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.
The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.
IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.
For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.
Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.
Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.
IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.
The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.
Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).
In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)
The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).
Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.
The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.
In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.
A call to action
In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.
As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”
The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”
Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”
Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.
“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.
She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.
This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).
The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.
“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”
The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”
The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
Increasing number of VHA users
“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.
The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.
IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.
For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.
Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.
Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.
IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.
The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.
Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).
In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)
The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).
Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.
The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.
In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.
A call to action
In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.
As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”
The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”
Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”
Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.
“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.
She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.
This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Severe obesity persists, takes high cardiovascular toll
In a U.K. cohort of more than 260,000 mostly middle-aged adults in primary care with overweight or obesity, body mass index remained relatively stable over a decade.
However, compared to overweight individuals, those with severe (class 3) obesity were more socioeconomically disadvantaged and had triple the risk for incident heart failure or all-cause or cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in a study published online April 15 in BMC Public Health.
“This is the first study to evaluate the long-term impact of overweight and obese individuals’ BMI trajectory on cardiovascular endpoints, heart failure, and mortality outcomes,” wrote Barbara Iyen, PhD, University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The findings emphasize “the high cardiovascular toll exacted by continuing failure to tackle obesity, particularly among more socioeconomically deprived populations,” they warned.
“We have found that despite widespread efforts to prevent and manage obesity, the majority of adults who are overweight or obese in the general population continue to remain so in the long term,” Dr. Iyen said in a statement from her university.
“More effective policies and weight-management interventions are needed urgently to address this increasing burden and associated adverse health outcomes,” she stressed.
Invited to comment, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview: “This research adds to the growing body of evidence [that] earlier and more intensive interventions for weight loss are necessary to promote cardiovascular health and reduce morbidity and mortality.
“Adjunctive pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery are both options that should be considered in addition to intensive lifestyle interventions in overweight and obesity groups,” she added.
“I would always advocate for earlier prevention efforts focused on weight loss, because years lived with obesity are associated with future CVD, so every year counts,” Dr. Khan said.
Does BMI remain elevated, predict worse heart health?
Although obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for CVD, long-term changes in BMI and the impact of BMI on the risk for heart failure, CVD, and mortality have not been quantified among adults with overweight and obesity, Dr. Iyen and colleagues explained.
The researchers examined data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and secondary care and mortality records to determine BMI trajectories among adults with overweight or obesity and to quantify the risk for heart failure, CVD (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality.
They identified 264,230 adults with overweight or obesity who were seen in 790 primary care practices in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2018 and who did not initially have heart failure or CVD and for whom baseline BMI measurements and at least one other BMI measurement 2, 5, 8, and 10 years later was available.
The researchers divided the cohort into four groups on the basis of initial BMI: overweight (36% of patients; mean BMI, 28.7 kg/m2); class 1 obesity (40%; mean BMI, 33.7 kg/m2); class 2 obesity (19%; mean BMI, 39.9 kg/m2), and class 3 obesity (5%; mean BMI, 49.1 kg/m2).
The mean age of the individuals was 50 years, and 64% were White. Race/ethnicity data were unavailable for 31%. Asian Indian, Asian, and Black patients comprised 5% of the cohort.
“Strong significant gradient in heart failure risk”
Compared to the overweight (reference) group, the severe-obesity group comprised a higher percentage of women (74% vs. 70%), and the prevalence of comorbidities and socioeconomic deprivation was higher.
BMI remained relatively stable in each BMI group. The mean BMI increase was 1.06 kg/m2 during a median follow-up of 10.9 years.
There were 30,400 incident cases of CVD, 7,662 incident cases of heart failure, and 24,022 deaths, of which 2,827 (11.8%) were from CVD.
The risk for heart failure and CVD-related or all-cause mortality increased with increasing obesity severity.
Compared with overweight individuals, those with class 3 obesity were at significantly increased risk for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26), all-cause mortality (HR, 2.72), and CVD-related mortality (HR, 3.31) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease).
The risk for stroke/TIA or coronary heart disease was similar among those with severe obesity and the other individuals. The risk for PVD was significantly lower (HR, 0.73).
The reduced risk for PVD in the most severely obese group is similar to findings in the Framingham heart study, the authors noted, and may be due to underdiagnosis or differences in the underlying mechanism.
Compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity
Study limitations include the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other race/ethnicity groups, the lack of information on diet and exercise, and the fact that BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity. As such, it does not account for an age-related decrease in heavier-than-fat muscle mass and differences between sexes and ethnic groups.
The finding of stable obesity over time accords with two smaller studies that included Canadian and American adults.
The current study did not uncover an obesity paradox, unlike some studies that included patients with preexisting CVD or a history of acute coronary events. Those studies reported better clinical outcomes among patients with overweight or obesity.
The current study included individuals who did not initially have CVD. Those with more severe obesity were younger than individuals with overweight at the time of the occurrence of incident CVD (age 64 vs. 66) and at the age of death (age 67 vs. age 75), which “provides compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity,” the authors emphasized.
“Further research is ... needed to explore whether interventions to change BMI trajectories would have an impact on future CVD outcomes,” they concluded.
Dr. Iyen’s clinical academic lectureship is fully funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Dr. Khan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a U.K. cohort of more than 260,000 mostly middle-aged adults in primary care with overweight or obesity, body mass index remained relatively stable over a decade.
However, compared to overweight individuals, those with severe (class 3) obesity were more socioeconomically disadvantaged and had triple the risk for incident heart failure or all-cause or cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in a study published online April 15 in BMC Public Health.
“This is the first study to evaluate the long-term impact of overweight and obese individuals’ BMI trajectory on cardiovascular endpoints, heart failure, and mortality outcomes,” wrote Barbara Iyen, PhD, University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The findings emphasize “the high cardiovascular toll exacted by continuing failure to tackle obesity, particularly among more socioeconomically deprived populations,” they warned.
“We have found that despite widespread efforts to prevent and manage obesity, the majority of adults who are overweight or obese in the general population continue to remain so in the long term,” Dr. Iyen said in a statement from her university.
“More effective policies and weight-management interventions are needed urgently to address this increasing burden and associated adverse health outcomes,” she stressed.
Invited to comment, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview: “This research adds to the growing body of evidence [that] earlier and more intensive interventions for weight loss are necessary to promote cardiovascular health and reduce morbidity and mortality.
“Adjunctive pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery are both options that should be considered in addition to intensive lifestyle interventions in overweight and obesity groups,” she added.
“I would always advocate for earlier prevention efforts focused on weight loss, because years lived with obesity are associated with future CVD, so every year counts,” Dr. Khan said.
Does BMI remain elevated, predict worse heart health?
Although obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for CVD, long-term changes in BMI and the impact of BMI on the risk for heart failure, CVD, and mortality have not been quantified among adults with overweight and obesity, Dr. Iyen and colleagues explained.
The researchers examined data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and secondary care and mortality records to determine BMI trajectories among adults with overweight or obesity and to quantify the risk for heart failure, CVD (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality.
They identified 264,230 adults with overweight or obesity who were seen in 790 primary care practices in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2018 and who did not initially have heart failure or CVD and for whom baseline BMI measurements and at least one other BMI measurement 2, 5, 8, and 10 years later was available.
The researchers divided the cohort into four groups on the basis of initial BMI: overweight (36% of patients; mean BMI, 28.7 kg/m2); class 1 obesity (40%; mean BMI, 33.7 kg/m2); class 2 obesity (19%; mean BMI, 39.9 kg/m2), and class 3 obesity (5%; mean BMI, 49.1 kg/m2).
The mean age of the individuals was 50 years, and 64% were White. Race/ethnicity data were unavailable for 31%. Asian Indian, Asian, and Black patients comprised 5% of the cohort.
“Strong significant gradient in heart failure risk”
Compared to the overweight (reference) group, the severe-obesity group comprised a higher percentage of women (74% vs. 70%), and the prevalence of comorbidities and socioeconomic deprivation was higher.
BMI remained relatively stable in each BMI group. The mean BMI increase was 1.06 kg/m2 during a median follow-up of 10.9 years.
There were 30,400 incident cases of CVD, 7,662 incident cases of heart failure, and 24,022 deaths, of which 2,827 (11.8%) were from CVD.
The risk for heart failure and CVD-related or all-cause mortality increased with increasing obesity severity.
Compared with overweight individuals, those with class 3 obesity were at significantly increased risk for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26), all-cause mortality (HR, 2.72), and CVD-related mortality (HR, 3.31) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease).
The risk for stroke/TIA or coronary heart disease was similar among those with severe obesity and the other individuals. The risk for PVD was significantly lower (HR, 0.73).
The reduced risk for PVD in the most severely obese group is similar to findings in the Framingham heart study, the authors noted, and may be due to underdiagnosis or differences in the underlying mechanism.
Compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity
Study limitations include the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other race/ethnicity groups, the lack of information on diet and exercise, and the fact that BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity. As such, it does not account for an age-related decrease in heavier-than-fat muscle mass and differences between sexes and ethnic groups.
The finding of stable obesity over time accords with two smaller studies that included Canadian and American adults.
The current study did not uncover an obesity paradox, unlike some studies that included patients with preexisting CVD or a history of acute coronary events. Those studies reported better clinical outcomes among patients with overweight or obesity.
The current study included individuals who did not initially have CVD. Those with more severe obesity were younger than individuals with overweight at the time of the occurrence of incident CVD (age 64 vs. 66) and at the age of death (age 67 vs. age 75), which “provides compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity,” the authors emphasized.
“Further research is ... needed to explore whether interventions to change BMI trajectories would have an impact on future CVD outcomes,” they concluded.
Dr. Iyen’s clinical academic lectureship is fully funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Dr. Khan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a U.K. cohort of more than 260,000 mostly middle-aged adults in primary care with overweight or obesity, body mass index remained relatively stable over a decade.
However, compared to overweight individuals, those with severe (class 3) obesity were more socioeconomically disadvantaged and had triple the risk for incident heart failure or all-cause or cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in a study published online April 15 in BMC Public Health.
“This is the first study to evaluate the long-term impact of overweight and obese individuals’ BMI trajectory on cardiovascular endpoints, heart failure, and mortality outcomes,” wrote Barbara Iyen, PhD, University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The findings emphasize “the high cardiovascular toll exacted by continuing failure to tackle obesity, particularly among more socioeconomically deprived populations,” they warned.
“We have found that despite widespread efforts to prevent and manage obesity, the majority of adults who are overweight or obese in the general population continue to remain so in the long term,” Dr. Iyen said in a statement from her university.
“More effective policies and weight-management interventions are needed urgently to address this increasing burden and associated adverse health outcomes,” she stressed.
Invited to comment, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview: “This research adds to the growing body of evidence [that] earlier and more intensive interventions for weight loss are necessary to promote cardiovascular health and reduce morbidity and mortality.
“Adjunctive pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery are both options that should be considered in addition to intensive lifestyle interventions in overweight and obesity groups,” she added.
“I would always advocate for earlier prevention efforts focused on weight loss, because years lived with obesity are associated with future CVD, so every year counts,” Dr. Khan said.
Does BMI remain elevated, predict worse heart health?
Although obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for CVD, long-term changes in BMI and the impact of BMI on the risk for heart failure, CVD, and mortality have not been quantified among adults with overweight and obesity, Dr. Iyen and colleagues explained.
The researchers examined data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and secondary care and mortality records to determine BMI trajectories among adults with overweight or obesity and to quantify the risk for heart failure, CVD (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality.
They identified 264,230 adults with overweight or obesity who were seen in 790 primary care practices in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2018 and who did not initially have heart failure or CVD and for whom baseline BMI measurements and at least one other BMI measurement 2, 5, 8, and 10 years later was available.
The researchers divided the cohort into four groups on the basis of initial BMI: overweight (36% of patients; mean BMI, 28.7 kg/m2); class 1 obesity (40%; mean BMI, 33.7 kg/m2); class 2 obesity (19%; mean BMI, 39.9 kg/m2), and class 3 obesity (5%; mean BMI, 49.1 kg/m2).
The mean age of the individuals was 50 years, and 64% were White. Race/ethnicity data were unavailable for 31%. Asian Indian, Asian, and Black patients comprised 5% of the cohort.
“Strong significant gradient in heart failure risk”
Compared to the overweight (reference) group, the severe-obesity group comprised a higher percentage of women (74% vs. 70%), and the prevalence of comorbidities and socioeconomic deprivation was higher.
BMI remained relatively stable in each BMI group. The mean BMI increase was 1.06 kg/m2 during a median follow-up of 10.9 years.
There were 30,400 incident cases of CVD, 7,662 incident cases of heart failure, and 24,022 deaths, of which 2,827 (11.8%) were from CVD.
The risk for heart failure and CVD-related or all-cause mortality increased with increasing obesity severity.
Compared with overweight individuals, those with class 3 obesity were at significantly increased risk for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26), all-cause mortality (HR, 2.72), and CVD-related mortality (HR, 3.31) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease).
The risk for stroke/TIA or coronary heart disease was similar among those with severe obesity and the other individuals. The risk for PVD was significantly lower (HR, 0.73).
The reduced risk for PVD in the most severely obese group is similar to findings in the Framingham heart study, the authors noted, and may be due to underdiagnosis or differences in the underlying mechanism.
Compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity
Study limitations include the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other race/ethnicity groups, the lack of information on diet and exercise, and the fact that BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity. As such, it does not account for an age-related decrease in heavier-than-fat muscle mass and differences between sexes and ethnic groups.
The finding of stable obesity over time accords with two smaller studies that included Canadian and American adults.
The current study did not uncover an obesity paradox, unlike some studies that included patients with preexisting CVD or a history of acute coronary events. Those studies reported better clinical outcomes among patients with overweight or obesity.
The current study included individuals who did not initially have CVD. Those with more severe obesity were younger than individuals with overweight at the time of the occurrence of incident CVD (age 64 vs. 66) and at the age of death (age 67 vs. age 75), which “provides compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity,” the authors emphasized.
“Further research is ... needed to explore whether interventions to change BMI trajectories would have an impact on future CVD outcomes,” they concluded.
Dr. Iyen’s clinical academic lectureship is fully funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Dr. Khan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study shows how COVID-19 disrupted RA meds
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.
The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.
“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
Details on medication changes
Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).
In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.
They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).
Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.
The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.
Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.
The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.
Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Stroke is ‘not a common complication’ in COVID-19
One study showed a stroke rate of 2.2% among patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care in 52 different countries. Another found a stroke rate of 1.48% in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 70 different countries. These researchers also found a reduction in stroke presentations and stroke care during the pandemic.
Both studies will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“Stroke has been a known serious complication of COVID-19, with some studies reporting a higher-than-expected occurrence, especially in young people,” said coauthor of the intensive care study, Jonathon Fanning, MBBS, PhD, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
“However, among the sickest of COVID patients – those admitted to an ICU – our research found that stroke was not a common complication and that ischemic stroke did not increase the risk of death,” he added.
Hemorrhagic stroke more common?
In this study, researchers analyzed a database of 2,699 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 in 52 countries and found that 59 of these patients (2.2%) subsequently sustained a stroke.
Most of the strokes identified in this cohort were hemorrhagic (46%), with 32% being ischemic and 22% unspecified. Hemorrhagic stroke was associated with a fivefold increased risk for death compared with patients who did not have a stroke. Of those with a hemorrhagic stroke, 72% died, but only 15% died of the stroke. Rather, multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death.
There was no association between ischemic stroke and mortality.
“There is scarce research on new-onset stroke complicating ICU admissions, and many of the limitations of assessing stroke in ICU populations confound the true values and result in variability in reported incidence anywhere from a 1%-4% incidence,” Dr. Fanning said.
He noted that a large Korean study had shown a 1.2% rate of stroke in patients without COVID admitted to non-neurologic ICUs. “In light of this, I think this 2% is higher than we would expect in a general ICU population, but in the context of earlier reports of COVID-19–associated risk for stroke, this figure is actually somewhat reassuring,” Dr. Fanning said.
Asked how this study compared with the large American Heart Association study recently reported that showed an overall rate of ischemic stroke of 0.75%, Dr. Fanning said the two studies reported on different populations, which makes them difficult to compare.
“Our study specifically reports on new-onset stroke complicating ICU admission,” he noted. “The AHA study is a large study of all patients admitted to hospital, but both studies identified less than previous estimates of COVID-related stroke.”
Largest sample to date
The other study, which includes 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations and represents the largest sample reporting the concomitant diagnoses of stroke and SARS-CoV-2 infection to date, was presented at the AAN meeting by Thanh N. Nguyen, MD, a professor at Boston University.
This study has also been published online in Neurology, with first author Raul G. Nogueira, MD, Emory University, Atlanta.
In this international observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers, there was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722) of all stroke admissions, which numbered 52,026.
The researchers identified stroke diagnoses by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes and/or classifications in stroke center databases, and rates of stroke hospitalizations and numbers of patients receiving thrombolysis were compared between the first 4 months of the pandemic (March to June 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.
Global decline in stroke care during pandemic
Results showed a global decline in the number of stroke patients admitted to the hospital as well as acute stroke treatments, such as thrombolysis, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers found that there were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before the pandemic, compared with 80,894 admissions during the first 4 pandemic months, representing an 11.5% decline.
They also report that 13,334 stroke patients received intravenous thrombolysis in the 4 months preceding the pandemic, compared with 11,570 during the first 4 pandemic months, representing a 13.2% drop.
Interhospital transfers after thrombolysis for a higher level of stroke care decreased from 1,337 before the pandemic to 1,178 during the pandemic, a reduction of 11.9%.
There were greater declines in primary compared with comprehensive stroke centers for stroke hospitalizations (change, –17.3% vs. –10.3%) and for the number of patients receiving thrombolysis (change, –15.5% vs. –12.6%).
The volume of stroke hospitalizations increased by 9.5% in the two later pandemic months (May, June) versus the two earlier months (March, April), with greater recovery in hospitals with lower COVID-19 hospitalization volume, high-volume stroke centers, and comprehensive stroke centers.
Dr. Nguyen suggested that reasons for the reductions in these stroke numbers at the beginning of the pandemic could include a reduction in stroke risk due to a reduction of exposure to other viral infections or patients not presenting to the hospital for fear of contracting the coronavirus.
The higher recovery of stroke volume in high-volume stroke centers and comprehensive stroke centers may represent patients with higher needs – those having more severe strokes – seeking care more frequently than those with milder symptoms, she noted.
“Preserving access to stroke care and emergency stroke care amidst a pandemic is as important as educating patients on the importance of presenting to the hospital in the event of stroke-like symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.
“We continue to advocate that if a patient has stroke-like symptoms, such as loss of speech, strength, vision, or balance, it is important for the patient to seek medical care as an emergency, as there are treatments that can improve a patient’s ability to recover from disabling stroke in earlier rather than later time windows,” she added.
In the publication, the authors wrote, “Our results concur with other recent reports on the collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke systems of care,” but added that “this is among the first descriptions of the change at a global level, including primary and comprehensive stroke centers.”
They said that hospital access related to high COVID-19 burden was unlikely a factor because the decline was seen in centers with a few or no patients with COVID-19. They suggested that patient fear of contracting coronavirus may have played a role, along with a decrease in presentation of transient ischemic attacks, mild strokes, or moderate strokes, and physical distancing measures may have prevented the timely witnessing of a stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One study showed a stroke rate of 2.2% among patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care in 52 different countries. Another found a stroke rate of 1.48% in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 70 different countries. These researchers also found a reduction in stroke presentations and stroke care during the pandemic.
Both studies will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“Stroke has been a known serious complication of COVID-19, with some studies reporting a higher-than-expected occurrence, especially in young people,” said coauthor of the intensive care study, Jonathon Fanning, MBBS, PhD, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
“However, among the sickest of COVID patients – those admitted to an ICU – our research found that stroke was not a common complication and that ischemic stroke did not increase the risk of death,” he added.
Hemorrhagic stroke more common?
In this study, researchers analyzed a database of 2,699 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 in 52 countries and found that 59 of these patients (2.2%) subsequently sustained a stroke.
Most of the strokes identified in this cohort were hemorrhagic (46%), with 32% being ischemic and 22% unspecified. Hemorrhagic stroke was associated with a fivefold increased risk for death compared with patients who did not have a stroke. Of those with a hemorrhagic stroke, 72% died, but only 15% died of the stroke. Rather, multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death.
There was no association between ischemic stroke and mortality.
“There is scarce research on new-onset stroke complicating ICU admissions, and many of the limitations of assessing stroke in ICU populations confound the true values and result in variability in reported incidence anywhere from a 1%-4% incidence,” Dr. Fanning said.
He noted that a large Korean study had shown a 1.2% rate of stroke in patients without COVID admitted to non-neurologic ICUs. “In light of this, I think this 2% is higher than we would expect in a general ICU population, but in the context of earlier reports of COVID-19–associated risk for stroke, this figure is actually somewhat reassuring,” Dr. Fanning said.
Asked how this study compared with the large American Heart Association study recently reported that showed an overall rate of ischemic stroke of 0.75%, Dr. Fanning said the two studies reported on different populations, which makes them difficult to compare.
“Our study specifically reports on new-onset stroke complicating ICU admission,” he noted. “The AHA study is a large study of all patients admitted to hospital, but both studies identified less than previous estimates of COVID-related stroke.”
Largest sample to date
The other study, which includes 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations and represents the largest sample reporting the concomitant diagnoses of stroke and SARS-CoV-2 infection to date, was presented at the AAN meeting by Thanh N. Nguyen, MD, a professor at Boston University.
This study has also been published online in Neurology, with first author Raul G. Nogueira, MD, Emory University, Atlanta.
In this international observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers, there was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722) of all stroke admissions, which numbered 52,026.
The researchers identified stroke diagnoses by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes and/or classifications in stroke center databases, and rates of stroke hospitalizations and numbers of patients receiving thrombolysis were compared between the first 4 months of the pandemic (March to June 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.
Global decline in stroke care during pandemic
Results showed a global decline in the number of stroke patients admitted to the hospital as well as acute stroke treatments, such as thrombolysis, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers found that there were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before the pandemic, compared with 80,894 admissions during the first 4 pandemic months, representing an 11.5% decline.
They also report that 13,334 stroke patients received intravenous thrombolysis in the 4 months preceding the pandemic, compared with 11,570 during the first 4 pandemic months, representing a 13.2% drop.
Interhospital transfers after thrombolysis for a higher level of stroke care decreased from 1,337 before the pandemic to 1,178 during the pandemic, a reduction of 11.9%.
There were greater declines in primary compared with comprehensive stroke centers for stroke hospitalizations (change, –17.3% vs. –10.3%) and for the number of patients receiving thrombolysis (change, –15.5% vs. –12.6%).
The volume of stroke hospitalizations increased by 9.5% in the two later pandemic months (May, June) versus the two earlier months (March, April), with greater recovery in hospitals with lower COVID-19 hospitalization volume, high-volume stroke centers, and comprehensive stroke centers.
Dr. Nguyen suggested that reasons for the reductions in these stroke numbers at the beginning of the pandemic could include a reduction in stroke risk due to a reduction of exposure to other viral infections or patients not presenting to the hospital for fear of contracting the coronavirus.
The higher recovery of stroke volume in high-volume stroke centers and comprehensive stroke centers may represent patients with higher needs – those having more severe strokes – seeking care more frequently than those with milder symptoms, she noted.
“Preserving access to stroke care and emergency stroke care amidst a pandemic is as important as educating patients on the importance of presenting to the hospital in the event of stroke-like symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.
“We continue to advocate that if a patient has stroke-like symptoms, such as loss of speech, strength, vision, or balance, it is important for the patient to seek medical care as an emergency, as there are treatments that can improve a patient’s ability to recover from disabling stroke in earlier rather than later time windows,” she added.
In the publication, the authors wrote, “Our results concur with other recent reports on the collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke systems of care,” but added that “this is among the first descriptions of the change at a global level, including primary and comprehensive stroke centers.”
They said that hospital access related to high COVID-19 burden was unlikely a factor because the decline was seen in centers with a few or no patients with COVID-19. They suggested that patient fear of contracting coronavirus may have played a role, along with a decrease in presentation of transient ischemic attacks, mild strokes, or moderate strokes, and physical distancing measures may have prevented the timely witnessing of a stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One study showed a stroke rate of 2.2% among patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care in 52 different countries. Another found a stroke rate of 1.48% in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 70 different countries. These researchers also found a reduction in stroke presentations and stroke care during the pandemic.
Both studies will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“Stroke has been a known serious complication of COVID-19, with some studies reporting a higher-than-expected occurrence, especially in young people,” said coauthor of the intensive care study, Jonathon Fanning, MBBS, PhD, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
“However, among the sickest of COVID patients – those admitted to an ICU – our research found that stroke was not a common complication and that ischemic stroke did not increase the risk of death,” he added.
Hemorrhagic stroke more common?
In this study, researchers analyzed a database of 2,699 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 in 52 countries and found that 59 of these patients (2.2%) subsequently sustained a stroke.
Most of the strokes identified in this cohort were hemorrhagic (46%), with 32% being ischemic and 22% unspecified. Hemorrhagic stroke was associated with a fivefold increased risk for death compared with patients who did not have a stroke. Of those with a hemorrhagic stroke, 72% died, but only 15% died of the stroke. Rather, multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death.
There was no association between ischemic stroke and mortality.
“There is scarce research on new-onset stroke complicating ICU admissions, and many of the limitations of assessing stroke in ICU populations confound the true values and result in variability in reported incidence anywhere from a 1%-4% incidence,” Dr. Fanning said.
He noted that a large Korean study had shown a 1.2% rate of stroke in patients without COVID admitted to non-neurologic ICUs. “In light of this, I think this 2% is higher than we would expect in a general ICU population, but in the context of earlier reports of COVID-19–associated risk for stroke, this figure is actually somewhat reassuring,” Dr. Fanning said.
Asked how this study compared with the large American Heart Association study recently reported that showed an overall rate of ischemic stroke of 0.75%, Dr. Fanning said the two studies reported on different populations, which makes them difficult to compare.
“Our study specifically reports on new-onset stroke complicating ICU admission,” he noted. “The AHA study is a large study of all patients admitted to hospital, but both studies identified less than previous estimates of COVID-related stroke.”
Largest sample to date
The other study, which includes 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations and represents the largest sample reporting the concomitant diagnoses of stroke and SARS-CoV-2 infection to date, was presented at the AAN meeting by Thanh N. Nguyen, MD, a professor at Boston University.
This study has also been published online in Neurology, with first author Raul G. Nogueira, MD, Emory University, Atlanta.
In this international observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers, there was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722) of all stroke admissions, which numbered 52,026.
The researchers identified stroke diagnoses by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, codes and/or classifications in stroke center databases, and rates of stroke hospitalizations and numbers of patients receiving thrombolysis were compared between the first 4 months of the pandemic (March to June 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.
Global decline in stroke care during pandemic
Results showed a global decline in the number of stroke patients admitted to the hospital as well as acute stroke treatments, such as thrombolysis, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers found that there were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before the pandemic, compared with 80,894 admissions during the first 4 pandemic months, representing an 11.5% decline.
They also report that 13,334 stroke patients received intravenous thrombolysis in the 4 months preceding the pandemic, compared with 11,570 during the first 4 pandemic months, representing a 13.2% drop.
Interhospital transfers after thrombolysis for a higher level of stroke care decreased from 1,337 before the pandemic to 1,178 during the pandemic, a reduction of 11.9%.
There were greater declines in primary compared with comprehensive stroke centers for stroke hospitalizations (change, –17.3% vs. –10.3%) and for the number of patients receiving thrombolysis (change, –15.5% vs. –12.6%).
The volume of stroke hospitalizations increased by 9.5% in the two later pandemic months (May, June) versus the two earlier months (March, April), with greater recovery in hospitals with lower COVID-19 hospitalization volume, high-volume stroke centers, and comprehensive stroke centers.
Dr. Nguyen suggested that reasons for the reductions in these stroke numbers at the beginning of the pandemic could include a reduction in stroke risk due to a reduction of exposure to other viral infections or patients not presenting to the hospital for fear of contracting the coronavirus.
The higher recovery of stroke volume in high-volume stroke centers and comprehensive stroke centers may represent patients with higher needs – those having more severe strokes – seeking care more frequently than those with milder symptoms, she noted.
“Preserving access to stroke care and emergency stroke care amidst a pandemic is as important as educating patients on the importance of presenting to the hospital in the event of stroke-like symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.
“We continue to advocate that if a patient has stroke-like symptoms, such as loss of speech, strength, vision, or balance, it is important for the patient to seek medical care as an emergency, as there are treatments that can improve a patient’s ability to recover from disabling stroke in earlier rather than later time windows,” she added.
In the publication, the authors wrote, “Our results concur with other recent reports on the collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke systems of care,” but added that “this is among the first descriptions of the change at a global level, including primary and comprehensive stroke centers.”
They said that hospital access related to high COVID-19 burden was unlikely a factor because the decline was seen in centers with a few or no patients with COVID-19. They suggested that patient fear of contracting coronavirus may have played a role, along with a decrease in presentation of transient ischemic attacks, mild strokes, or moderate strokes, and physical distancing measures may have prevented the timely witnessing of a stroke.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAN 2021
Ten reasons airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears airtight
The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.
Not that it’s without controversy.
The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.
“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).
“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.
“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
Top 10 reasons
They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:
- The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
- Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
- Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
- Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
- Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
- Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
- Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
- It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
- No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
- Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.
“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.
The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
Response to a review
The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”
However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”
Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.
“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”
As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”
The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.
Not that it’s without controversy.
The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.
“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).
“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.
“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
Top 10 reasons
They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:
- The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
- Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
- Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
- Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
- Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
- Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
- Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
- It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
- No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
- Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.
“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.
The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
Response to a review
The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”
However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”
Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.
“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”
As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”
The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.
Not that it’s without controversy.
The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.
“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).
“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.
“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
Top 10 reasons
They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:
- The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
- Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
- Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
- Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
- Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
- Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
- Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
- It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
- No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
- Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.
“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.
The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
Response to a review
The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”
However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”
Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.
“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”
As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”
The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.