Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A third COVID-19 vaccine is now in circulation and states are starting to drop mask mandates, but the latest decline in weekly child cases barely registers as a decline, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children fell from 64,264 (Feb. 19-25) to 63,562 (Feb. 26 to March 4). That’s only 702 cases – a drop of just 1.1% – the smallest by far since weekly cases peaked in mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Since that peak, the last 7 weeks of declines have looked like this: 21.7%, 15.3%, 16.2%, 15.7%, 28.7%, 9.0%, and 1.1%.

Meanwhile, children’s share of the COVID-19 burden increased to its highest point ever: 18.0% of all new cases occurred in children during the week ending March 4, climbing from 15.7% the week before and eclipsing the previous high of 16.9%. Cumulatively, the 3.23 million cases in children represent 13.2% of all COVID-19 cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

At the state level, the new leader in cumulative share of cases is Vermont at 19.4%, which just edged past Wyoming’s 19.3% as of the week ending March 4. The other states above 18% are Alaska (19.2%) and South Carolina (18.2%). The lowest rates can be found in Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (10.2%), Iowa (10.4%), and Utah (10.5%), the AAP and CHA said.

The overall rate of COVID-19 cases nationwide was 4,294 cases per 100,000 children as of March 4, up from 4,209 per 100,000 the week before. That measure had doubled between Dec. 3 (1,941 per 100,000) and Feb. 4 (3,899) but has only risen about 10% in the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Perhaps the most surprising news of the week involves the number of COVID-19 deaths in children, which went from 256 the previous week to 253 after Ohio made a downward revision of its mortality data. So far, children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, a figure that has held steady since last summer in the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) that are reporting mortality data by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

A third COVID-19 vaccine is now in circulation and states are starting to drop mask mandates, but the latest decline in weekly child cases barely registers as a decline, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children fell from 64,264 (Feb. 19-25) to 63,562 (Feb. 26 to March 4). That’s only 702 cases – a drop of just 1.1% – the smallest by far since weekly cases peaked in mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Since that peak, the last 7 weeks of declines have looked like this: 21.7%, 15.3%, 16.2%, 15.7%, 28.7%, 9.0%, and 1.1%.

Meanwhile, children’s share of the COVID-19 burden increased to its highest point ever: 18.0% of all new cases occurred in children during the week ending March 4, climbing from 15.7% the week before and eclipsing the previous high of 16.9%. Cumulatively, the 3.23 million cases in children represent 13.2% of all COVID-19 cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

At the state level, the new leader in cumulative share of cases is Vermont at 19.4%, which just edged past Wyoming’s 19.3% as of the week ending March 4. The other states above 18% are Alaska (19.2%) and South Carolina (18.2%). The lowest rates can be found in Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (10.2%), Iowa (10.4%), and Utah (10.5%), the AAP and CHA said.

The overall rate of COVID-19 cases nationwide was 4,294 cases per 100,000 children as of March 4, up from 4,209 per 100,000 the week before. That measure had doubled between Dec. 3 (1,941 per 100,000) and Feb. 4 (3,899) but has only risen about 10% in the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Perhaps the most surprising news of the week involves the number of COVID-19 deaths in children, which went from 256 the previous week to 253 after Ohio made a downward revision of its mortality data. So far, children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, a figure that has held steady since last summer in the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) that are reporting mortality data by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

A third COVID-19 vaccine is now in circulation and states are starting to drop mask mandates, but the latest decline in weekly child cases barely registers as a decline, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children fell from 64,264 (Feb. 19-25) to 63,562 (Feb. 26 to March 4). That’s only 702 cases – a drop of just 1.1% – the smallest by far since weekly cases peaked in mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Since that peak, the last 7 weeks of declines have looked like this: 21.7%, 15.3%, 16.2%, 15.7%, 28.7%, 9.0%, and 1.1%.

Meanwhile, children’s share of the COVID-19 burden increased to its highest point ever: 18.0% of all new cases occurred in children during the week ending March 4, climbing from 15.7% the week before and eclipsing the previous high of 16.9%. Cumulatively, the 3.23 million cases in children represent 13.2% of all COVID-19 cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

At the state level, the new leader in cumulative share of cases is Vermont at 19.4%, which just edged past Wyoming’s 19.3% as of the week ending March 4. The other states above 18% are Alaska (19.2%) and South Carolina (18.2%). The lowest rates can be found in Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (10.2%), Iowa (10.4%), and Utah (10.5%), the AAP and CHA said.

The overall rate of COVID-19 cases nationwide was 4,294 cases per 100,000 children as of March 4, up from 4,209 per 100,000 the week before. That measure had doubled between Dec. 3 (1,941 per 100,000) and Feb. 4 (3,899) but has only risen about 10% in the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Perhaps the most surprising news of the week involves the number of COVID-19 deaths in children, which went from 256 the previous week to 253 after Ohio made a downward revision of its mortality data. So far, children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, a figure that has held steady since last summer in the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) that are reporting mortality data by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 could have been avoided if obesity rates were lower, a new report says.

An analysis by the World Obesity Federation found that of the 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, almost 90% (2.2 million) were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

The report, released to coincide with World Obesity Day, calls for obesity to be recognized as a disease in its own right around the world, and for people with obesity to be included in priority lists for COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

“Overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from COVID-19, including the need for hospitalization, for intensive care and for mechanical ventilation,” the WOF notes in the report.

It adds that in countries where less than half the adult population is classified as overweight (body mass index > 25 mg/kg²), for example, Vietnam, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 is a small fraction – around one-tenth – of the level seen in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

And while it acknowledges that figures for COVID-19 deaths are affected by the age structure of national populations and a country’s relative wealth and reporting capacity, “our findings appear to be independent of these contributory factors. Furthermore, other studies have found that overweight remains a highly significant predictor of the need for COVID-19 health care after accounting for these other influences.”

As an example, based on the U.K. experience, where an estimated 36% of COVID-19 hospitalizations have been attributed to lack of physical activity and excess body weight, it can be suggested that up to a third of the costs – between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the longer period – might be attributable to these predisposing risks.

The report said the prevalence of obesity in the United Kingdom is expected to rise from 27.8% in 2016 to more than 35% by 2025.

Rachel Batterham, lead adviser on obesity at the Royal College of Physicians, commented: “The link between high levels of obesity and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. is indisputable, as is the urgent need to address the factors that lead so many people to be living with obesity.

“With 30% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.K. directly attributed to overweight and obesity, and three-quarters of all critically ill patients having overweight or obesity, the human and financial costs are high.”
 

Window of opportunity to prioritize obesity as a disease

WOF says that evolving evidence on the close association between COVID-19 and underlying obesity “provides a new urgency … for political and collective action.”

“Obesity is a disease that does not receive prioritization commensurate with its prevalence and impact, which is rising fastest in emerging economies. It is a gateway to many other noncommunicable diseases and mental-health illness and is now a major factor in COVID-19 complications and mortality.”

The WOF also shows that COVID-19 is not a special case, noting that several other respiratory viruses lead to more severe consequences in people living with excess bodyweight, giving good reasons to expect the next pandemic to have similar effects. “For these reasons we need to recognize overweight as a major risk factor for infectious diseases including respiratory viruses.”

“To prevent pandemic health crises in future requires action now: we call on all readers to support the World Obesity Federation’s call for stronger, more resilient economies that prioritize investment in people’s health.”

There is, it stresses, “a window of opportunity to advocate for, fund and implement these actions in all countries to ensure better, more resilient and sustainable health for all, “now and in our postCOVID-19 future.”

It proposes a ROOTS approach:

• Recognize that obesity is a disease in its own right.
• Obesity monitoring and surveillance must be enhanced.
• Obesity prevention strategies must be developed.
• Treatment of obesity.
• Systems-based approaches should be applied.

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

Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 could have been avoided if obesity rates were lower, a new report says.

An analysis by the World Obesity Federation found that of the 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, almost 90% (2.2 million) were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

The report, released to coincide with World Obesity Day, calls for obesity to be recognized as a disease in its own right around the world, and for people with obesity to be included in priority lists for COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

“Overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from COVID-19, including the need for hospitalization, for intensive care and for mechanical ventilation,” the WOF notes in the report.

It adds that in countries where less than half the adult population is classified as overweight (body mass index > 25 mg/kg²), for example, Vietnam, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 is a small fraction – around one-tenth – of the level seen in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

And while it acknowledges that figures for COVID-19 deaths are affected by the age structure of national populations and a country’s relative wealth and reporting capacity, “our findings appear to be independent of these contributory factors. Furthermore, other studies have found that overweight remains a highly significant predictor of the need for COVID-19 health care after accounting for these other influences.”

As an example, based on the U.K. experience, where an estimated 36% of COVID-19 hospitalizations have been attributed to lack of physical activity and excess body weight, it can be suggested that up to a third of the costs – between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the longer period – might be attributable to these predisposing risks.

The report said the prevalence of obesity in the United Kingdom is expected to rise from 27.8% in 2016 to more than 35% by 2025.

Rachel Batterham, lead adviser on obesity at the Royal College of Physicians, commented: “The link between high levels of obesity and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. is indisputable, as is the urgent need to address the factors that lead so many people to be living with obesity.

“With 30% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.K. directly attributed to overweight and obesity, and three-quarters of all critically ill patients having overweight or obesity, the human and financial costs are high.”
 

Window of opportunity to prioritize obesity as a disease

WOF says that evolving evidence on the close association between COVID-19 and underlying obesity “provides a new urgency … for political and collective action.”

“Obesity is a disease that does not receive prioritization commensurate with its prevalence and impact, which is rising fastest in emerging economies. It is a gateway to many other noncommunicable diseases and mental-health illness and is now a major factor in COVID-19 complications and mortality.”

The WOF also shows that COVID-19 is not a special case, noting that several other respiratory viruses lead to more severe consequences in people living with excess bodyweight, giving good reasons to expect the next pandemic to have similar effects. “For these reasons we need to recognize overweight as a major risk factor for infectious diseases including respiratory viruses.”

“To prevent pandemic health crises in future requires action now: we call on all readers to support the World Obesity Federation’s call for stronger, more resilient economies that prioritize investment in people’s health.”

There is, it stresses, “a window of opportunity to advocate for, fund and implement these actions in all countries to ensure better, more resilient and sustainable health for all, “now and in our postCOVID-19 future.”

It proposes a ROOTS approach:

• Recognize that obesity is a disease in its own right.
• Obesity monitoring and surveillance must be enhanced.
• Obesity prevention strategies must be developed.
• Treatment of obesity.
• Systems-based approaches should be applied.

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

Hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from COVID-19 could have been avoided if obesity rates were lower, a new report says.

An analysis by the World Obesity Federation found that of the 2.5 million COVID-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, almost 90% (2.2 million) were in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

The report, released to coincide with World Obesity Day, calls for obesity to be recognized as a disease in its own right around the world, and for people with obesity to be included in priority lists for COVID-19 testing and vaccination.

“Overweight is a highly significant predictor of developing complications from COVID-19, including the need for hospitalization, for intensive care and for mechanical ventilation,” the WOF notes in the report.

It adds that in countries where less than half the adult population is classified as overweight (body mass index > 25 mg/kg²), for example, Vietnam, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 is a small fraction – around one-tenth – of the level seen in countries where more than half the population is classified as overweight.

And while it acknowledges that figures for COVID-19 deaths are affected by the age structure of national populations and a country’s relative wealth and reporting capacity, “our findings appear to be independent of these contributory factors. Furthermore, other studies have found that overweight remains a highly significant predictor of the need for COVID-19 health care after accounting for these other influences.”

As an example, based on the U.K. experience, where an estimated 36% of COVID-19 hospitalizations have been attributed to lack of physical activity and excess body weight, it can be suggested that up to a third of the costs – between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the longer period – might be attributable to these predisposing risks.

The report said the prevalence of obesity in the United Kingdom is expected to rise from 27.8% in 2016 to more than 35% by 2025.

Rachel Batterham, lead adviser on obesity at the Royal College of Physicians, commented: “The link between high levels of obesity and deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. is indisputable, as is the urgent need to address the factors that lead so many people to be living with obesity.

“With 30% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the U.K. directly attributed to overweight and obesity, and three-quarters of all critically ill patients having overweight or obesity, the human and financial costs are high.”
 

Window of opportunity to prioritize obesity as a disease

WOF says that evolving evidence on the close association between COVID-19 and underlying obesity “provides a new urgency … for political and collective action.”

“Obesity is a disease that does not receive prioritization commensurate with its prevalence and impact, which is rising fastest in emerging economies. It is a gateway to many other noncommunicable diseases and mental-health illness and is now a major factor in COVID-19 complications and mortality.”

The WOF also shows that COVID-19 is not a special case, noting that several other respiratory viruses lead to more severe consequences in people living with excess bodyweight, giving good reasons to expect the next pandemic to have similar effects. “For these reasons we need to recognize overweight as a major risk factor for infectious diseases including respiratory viruses.”

“To prevent pandemic health crises in future requires action now: we call on all readers to support the World Obesity Federation’s call for stronger, more resilient economies that prioritize investment in people’s health.”

There is, it stresses, “a window of opportunity to advocate for, fund and implement these actions in all countries to ensure better, more resilient and sustainable health for all, “now and in our postCOVID-19 future.”

It proposes a ROOTS approach:

• Recognize that obesity is a disease in its own right.
• Obesity monitoring and surveillance must be enhanced.
• Obesity prevention strategies must be developed.
• Treatment of obesity.
• Systems-based approaches should be applied.

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