Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

No hint of increased mortality risk in association with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease was detected in VOYAGER PAD, a multithousand-patient randomized trial with long-term follow-up and ascertainment of vital status in 99.6% of participants.

Observers opined that the VOYAGER PAD findings effectively put to rest a nearly 2-year-old controversy over whether paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) carry an increased mortality risk. The imbroglio, which was ignited by a meta-analysis of clinical trials with substantial amounts of missing follow-up data, triggered an Food and Drug Administration warning letter to health care providers which threw the field of vascular medicine into disarray.

“Although as a community we’ve continued to struggle with this issue of paclitaxel and mortality, VOYAGER PAD does fill many of the gaps and addresses many of the limitations of currently available data,” Connie N. Hess, MD, said in reporting results of a prespecified analysis of the trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting. “I think these are the most definitive data to date supporting the safety of drug-coated device use.”

VOYAGER PAD was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which 6,564 patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background low-dose aspirin. In the previously reported primary outcome, the group on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant 15% reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, MI, ischemic stroke, or major amputation for vascular causes.

Of the 4,316 patients included in the prespecified analysis by Dr. Hess, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, 31% received a paclitaxel-coated device. At 3.5 years of follow-up, they had a 10.2% all-cause mortality rate, significantly less than the 13.5% rate in patients who didn’t get a drug-coated device. But since study participants weren’t randomized for drug-coated device use, the investigators utilized a rigorous form of propensity adjustment called inverse probability treatment weighting to neutralize all between-group differences in potentially confounding baseline characteristics, including statin use, prevalence of claudication, and target lesion length.

In the weighted analysis, the all-cause mortality rate at 3.5 years was 12.1% in paclitaxel-coated device recipients and 12.6% in those who didn’t get such devices. The difference was not statistically significant, and the hazard ratio of 0.95 had tight confidence intervals.

“We don’t see a mortality benefit, but I think more importantly, we don’t see any risk for mortality,” the cardiologist observed at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

There was no between-group difference in causes of mortality. Nor did all-cause mortality differ by device type, be it paclitaxel-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty, or drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent.

Also, the benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin over aspirin alone in terms of cardiovascular and ischemic limb outcomes was consistent regardless of whether patients got a drug-coated device or not.

Discussant Robert Lookstein, MD, praised Dr. Hess for “a really enlightening presentation.”

“The entire vascular community has been waiting for a prospective, independently adjudicated trial to try to make determinations of whether we can put this issue behind us, and I think this trial is it,” said Dr. Lookstein, professor of interventional radiology and surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Personally, I think this is probably the most impactful data seen regarding the paclitaxel issue in almost 2 years because it is randomized data, it’s prospectively collected data, and – most importantly from my perspective – they were able to collect vital statistics on more than 99.5% of the patients,” he added. “I think this is incredibly impactful to my practice.”

Frank Veith, MD, professor of surgery at New York University, concurred, declaring, “I think this study is a game changer. And I think the paclitaxel game is over.”

The VOYAGER PAD study was funded by institutional research grants from Bayer and Janssen.

[email protected]

No hint of increased mortality risk in association with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease was detected in VOYAGER PAD, a multithousand-patient randomized trial with long-term follow-up and ascertainment of vital status in 99.6% of participants.

Observers opined that the VOYAGER PAD findings effectively put to rest a nearly 2-year-old controversy over whether paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) carry an increased mortality risk. The imbroglio, which was ignited by a meta-analysis of clinical trials with substantial amounts of missing follow-up data, triggered an Food and Drug Administration warning letter to health care providers which threw the field of vascular medicine into disarray.

“Although as a community we’ve continued to struggle with this issue of paclitaxel and mortality, VOYAGER PAD does fill many of the gaps and addresses many of the limitations of currently available data,” Connie N. Hess, MD, said in reporting results of a prespecified analysis of the trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting. “I think these are the most definitive data to date supporting the safety of drug-coated device use.”

VOYAGER PAD was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which 6,564 patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background low-dose aspirin. In the previously reported primary outcome, the group on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant 15% reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, MI, ischemic stroke, or major amputation for vascular causes.

Of the 4,316 patients included in the prespecified analysis by Dr. Hess, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, 31% received a paclitaxel-coated device. At 3.5 years of follow-up, they had a 10.2% all-cause mortality rate, significantly less than the 13.5% rate in patients who didn’t get a drug-coated device. But since study participants weren’t randomized for drug-coated device use, the investigators utilized a rigorous form of propensity adjustment called inverse probability treatment weighting to neutralize all between-group differences in potentially confounding baseline characteristics, including statin use, prevalence of claudication, and target lesion length.

In the weighted analysis, the all-cause mortality rate at 3.5 years was 12.1% in paclitaxel-coated device recipients and 12.6% in those who didn’t get such devices. The difference was not statistically significant, and the hazard ratio of 0.95 had tight confidence intervals.

“We don’t see a mortality benefit, but I think more importantly, we don’t see any risk for mortality,” the cardiologist observed at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

There was no between-group difference in causes of mortality. Nor did all-cause mortality differ by device type, be it paclitaxel-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty, or drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent.

Also, the benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin over aspirin alone in terms of cardiovascular and ischemic limb outcomes was consistent regardless of whether patients got a drug-coated device or not.

Discussant Robert Lookstein, MD, praised Dr. Hess for “a really enlightening presentation.”

“The entire vascular community has been waiting for a prospective, independently adjudicated trial to try to make determinations of whether we can put this issue behind us, and I think this trial is it,” said Dr. Lookstein, professor of interventional radiology and surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Personally, I think this is probably the most impactful data seen regarding the paclitaxel issue in almost 2 years because it is randomized data, it’s prospectively collected data, and – most importantly from my perspective – they were able to collect vital statistics on more than 99.5% of the patients,” he added. “I think this is incredibly impactful to my practice.”

Frank Veith, MD, professor of surgery at New York University, concurred, declaring, “I think this study is a game changer. And I think the paclitaxel game is over.”

The VOYAGER PAD study was funded by institutional research grants from Bayer and Janssen.

[email protected]

No hint of increased mortality risk in association with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease was detected in VOYAGER PAD, a multithousand-patient randomized trial with long-term follow-up and ascertainment of vital status in 99.6% of participants.

Observers opined that the VOYAGER PAD findings effectively put to rest a nearly 2-year-old controversy over whether paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) carry an increased mortality risk. The imbroglio, which was ignited by a meta-analysis of clinical trials with substantial amounts of missing follow-up data, triggered an Food and Drug Administration warning letter to health care providers which threw the field of vascular medicine into disarray.

“Although as a community we’ve continued to struggle with this issue of paclitaxel and mortality, VOYAGER PAD does fill many of the gaps and addresses many of the limitations of currently available data,” Connie N. Hess, MD, said in reporting results of a prespecified analysis of the trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting. “I think these are the most definitive data to date supporting the safety of drug-coated device use.”

VOYAGER PAD was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which 6,564 patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background low-dose aspirin. In the previously reported primary outcome, the group on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant 15% reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, MI, ischemic stroke, or major amputation for vascular causes.

Of the 4,316 patients included in the prespecified analysis by Dr. Hess, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, 31% received a paclitaxel-coated device. At 3.5 years of follow-up, they had a 10.2% all-cause mortality rate, significantly less than the 13.5% rate in patients who didn’t get a drug-coated device. But since study participants weren’t randomized for drug-coated device use, the investigators utilized a rigorous form of propensity adjustment called inverse probability treatment weighting to neutralize all between-group differences in potentially confounding baseline characteristics, including statin use, prevalence of claudication, and target lesion length.

In the weighted analysis, the all-cause mortality rate at 3.5 years was 12.1% in paclitaxel-coated device recipients and 12.6% in those who didn’t get such devices. The difference was not statistically significant, and the hazard ratio of 0.95 had tight confidence intervals.

“We don’t see a mortality benefit, but I think more importantly, we don’t see any risk for mortality,” the cardiologist observed at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

There was no between-group difference in causes of mortality. Nor did all-cause mortality differ by device type, be it paclitaxel-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty, or drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent.

Also, the benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin over aspirin alone in terms of cardiovascular and ischemic limb outcomes was consistent regardless of whether patients got a drug-coated device or not.

Discussant Robert Lookstein, MD, praised Dr. Hess for “a really enlightening presentation.”

“The entire vascular community has been waiting for a prospective, independently adjudicated trial to try to make determinations of whether we can put this issue behind us, and I think this trial is it,” said Dr. Lookstein, professor of interventional radiology and surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Personally, I think this is probably the most impactful data seen regarding the paclitaxel issue in almost 2 years because it is randomized data, it’s prospectively collected data, and – most importantly from my perspective – they were able to collect vital statistics on more than 99.5% of the patients,” he added. “I think this is incredibly impactful to my practice.”

Frank Veith, MD, professor of surgery at New York University, concurred, declaring, “I think this study is a game changer. And I think the paclitaxel game is over.”

The VOYAGER PAD study was funded by institutional research grants from Bayer and Janssen.

[email protected]

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into the medical education landscape across the entire health care spectrum, disrupting the plans of medical students, residents, fellows, and program directors.

As cases of COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, it became clear to training program directors that immediate action was required to meet the needs of medical learners. The challenges were unlike those surrounding the Ebola virus in 2014, “where we could more easily prevent students and trainees from exposure due to the fact that there were simply not significant numbers of cases in the United States,” Tiffany Murano, MD, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. Dr. Murano is professor of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and president-elect of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine. “COVID was a completely different scenario. We quickly realized that not only was personal protective equipment in short supply, but we also lacked the testing and tracking capabilities for potential exposures. Medical students and other supportive workers who were considered nonessential were removed from the clinical setting. This was after a trial of limiting who the students saw, essentially dampening the risk of exposure. But this proved to be flawed as COVID patients presented with symptoms that were unexpected.”

To complicate matters, she continued, many medical clinics either shut down, had limited access, or converted to telemedicine. Elective surgeries were canceled. This led to an overall pause in clinical medical student rotations and no direct patient care activities. As social distancing mandates were instituted, licensing examination testing centers were closed, and exams and on-campus activities were postponed.
 

Limiting trainee exposure

On the graduate medical education front, some training programs attempted to limit exposure of their trainees to persons under investigation for COVID-19. “As the number of COVID cases grew and encompassed most of what we were seeing in the hospital, it was obvious that residents had to play a vital part in the care of these patients,” said Dr. Murano, who is also a member of the American Council of Graduate Medical Education’s emergency review and recognition committee. “However, there was a consensus among all of the specialties that the procedures that posed the highest risk of exposure would be limited to the most senior or experienced trainees or professionals, and closely supervised by the faculty.”

ACGME activities such as accreditation site visits, clinical environment learning reviews, self-study, and resident and faculty surveys were suspended, postponed, or modified in some way, she said. The ACGME created stages of COVID status to guide sponsoring institutions to suspend learning curricula in order for patients to be cared for. Stage 1 was business as usual, “so there was no significant impact on patient care,” Dr. Murano said. “Stage 2 was increased but manageable clinical demand, while stage 3 was pandemic emergency status, where there were extraordinary circumstances where the clinical demand was so high and strenuous that the routine patient care and education really needed to be reconfigured in order to care for the patients.”

New requirements to manage training

The ACGME also implemented four requirements to manage training that were consistent among institutions, regardless of their COVID stage status. These included making sure that trainees continued to be held to work-hour limit requirements, ensuring adequate resources for training, ensuring that all residents had the appropriate level of supervision at all times, and allowing fellows to function in the core specialty in which they completed their residency training. “This was only possible if the fellows were ABMS [American Board of Medical Specialties] or AOA [American Osteopathic Association] board-eligible, or certified in their core specialty,” Dr. Murano said. “The fellows had to be appointed to the medical staff at the sponsoring institution, and their time spent on the core specialty service would be limited to 20% of their annual education time in any academic year.”

Mindful that there may have been trainees who required a 2-week quarantine period following exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, some specialty boards showed leniency in residency time required to sit for the written exam. “Testing centers were being forced to close to observe social distancing requirements and heed sanitation recommendations, so exams were either canceled or postponed,” Dr. Murano said. “This posed a special concern for the board certification process, and those specialties with oral examinations had to make a heavy decision regarding whether or not they would allow these exams to take place. Naturally, travel among institutions was suspended or limited, or had quarantine requirements upon returning home from endemic areas. Conferences were either being canceled or converted to virtual formats.”

Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Columbia University, New York, is the internal medicine residency program director and the associate vice-chair of education for the department of medicine, and she recognized the problem created for medical trainees by the changes necessitated by the pandemic.

“The variability in caseloads and clinical exposure has given thrust to the move toward competency-based assessments rather than number- or time-based criteria for determining proficiency and graduation,” she wrote in an email interview. In addition, she noted the impact on medical meetings and the need to adapt. “Early on, before large regional and national conferences adapted to a virtual format, many were canceled altogether. Students, residents, and fellows expecting to have the opportunity to present their scholarly work were suddenly no longer able to do so. Understanding the importance of scholarly interaction, the virtual format of CHEST 2020 is designed with opportunities to present, interact with experts in the field, ask questions, network, and meet mentors.”

No return to ‘normal’

By April 2020, cases in the northeast continued to rise, particularly in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region. “These states were essentially shut down in order to contain spread of the virus,” she said. “This was a real turning point because we realized that things were not going to return to ‘normal’ in the foreseeable future.” With the clinical experience essentially halted for medical students during this time, some medical schools allowed their senior students who met requirements to graduate early. “There were a lot of mixed feelings about this, recognizing that PPE [personal protective equipment] was still in short supply in many areas,” Dr. Murano said. “So, institutions took on these early graduates into roles in which they were not learners in particular, but rather medical workers. They were helping with informatics and technology, telehealth, virtual or telephone call follow-ups, and other tasks like this. There was a movement to virtual learning for the preclinical undergraduate learners, so classes were now online, recorded, or livestreamed.”
 

Early graduation, matching, and residencies

On April 3, the ACGME released a statement regarding graduating students early and appointing them early to the clinical learning environment. “They pointed out that institutions that were in emergency pandemic status lacked the ability to offer the comprehensive orientation and training in PPE and direct supervision required for new residents at the start of their residency,” Dr. Murano said. “Their opinion maintained that graduating medical students matriculate in their previously matched program, the National Resident Match Program start date, or other date that would be nationally determined to be the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year.”

As May 2020 rolled around, the overriding feeling was uncertainty regarding when, if, and how medical schools were going to open in the early summer and fall. “There was also uncertainty about how graduating medical students were going to function in their new role as residents,” she said. “Same for the graduating residents. There were some who had signed contracts for jobs months before, and had them rescinded, and physicians were being furloughed due to financial hardships that institutions faced. There was also postponement of board certification exams, so people were uncertain about when they would become board certified.”

July 2020 ushered in what Dr. Murano characterized as “a whole new level of stress.” For medical students in particular, “we were entering the application season for residency positions,” she said. “Due to travel restrictions placed by various states and institutions, away rotations were limited or nonexistent. Application release dates through the Electronic Residency Application Service were moved to later in the year. The United States Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills exam was suspended, and there were modifications made for Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requirements. Letters of recommendation were also going to be limited, so there had to be some degree of leniency within specialties to take a more holistic approach to review of applications for residencies.”

On the graduate medical education front, the ACGME sunsetted the initial stages and created two categories: nonemergency, which was formerly stages 1 and 2, and emergency, which was formerly stage 3. “All emergency stages are applied for and granted at 1-month intervals,” Dr. Murano said. Board certification exams were modified to accommodate either later exams or online formats, and specialties with oral examinations faced the task of potentially creating virtual oral exams.

Despite the challenges, Dr. Chandra has seen medical training programs respond with new ideas. “The flexibility and agile adaptability of the entire educational enterprise has been remarkable. The inherent uncertainty in a very dynamic and changing learning environment can be challenging. Recognizing this, many programs are creating additional ways to support the mental, emotional, physical, and financial health of students, residents, and fellows and all health care workers. The importance of this innovative response cannot be overstated.”
 

New learning formats

The pandemic forced Dr. Murano and other medical educators to consider unorthodox learning formats, and virtual learning took center stage. “Residency programs had shared national livestream conferences and grand rounds, and there were virtual curricula made for medical students as well as virtual simulation,” she said. “Telemedicine and telehealth really became important parts of education as well, as this may have been the only face-to-face contact that students and residents had with patients who had non–COVID-related complaints.”

To level the playing field for medical residents during this unprecedented time, a work group of the Coalition for Physician Accountability developed a set of recommendations that include limiting the number of letters of recommendation accepted, limiting the number of away rotations, and allowing alternative or less conventional letters of recommendation. “Keeping an open mind and taking a more holistic approach to applicants has really been needed during this time,” Dr. Murano said. “Virtual interview days have been agreed upon for all specialties. They’re safer, and they allow for students to virtually meet faculty and residents from distant programs that in the past would have been a deterrent due to distance and travel costs. This is not without its own downside, as it’s difficult to determine how well a student will fit into a program without [him or her] actually visiting the institution.”

Dr. Chandra agreed that virtual interviews are necessary but have inherent limitations. However, “we will all learn a lot, and very likely the future process will blend the benefits of both virtual and in-person interviews.”
 

‘We need to keep moving forward’

Dr. Murano concluded her presentation by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for growth and innovation in medical education, “so we need to keep moving forward. I’ve heard many say that they can’t wait for things to go back to normal. But I think it’s important to go ahead to new and better ways of learning. We’re now thinking outside of the typical education model and are embracing technology and alternative means of education. We don’t know yet if this education is better, worse, or equivalent to traditional methods, but that will be determined and studied in months and years to come, so we’re certainly looking to the future.”

Dr. Murano and Dr. Chandra reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into the medical education landscape across the entire health care spectrum, disrupting the plans of medical students, residents, fellows, and program directors.

As cases of COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, it became clear to training program directors that immediate action was required to meet the needs of medical learners. The challenges were unlike those surrounding the Ebola virus in 2014, “where we could more easily prevent students and trainees from exposure due to the fact that there were simply not significant numbers of cases in the United States,” Tiffany Murano, MD, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. Dr. Murano is professor of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and president-elect of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine. “COVID was a completely different scenario. We quickly realized that not only was personal protective equipment in short supply, but we also lacked the testing and tracking capabilities for potential exposures. Medical students and other supportive workers who were considered nonessential were removed from the clinical setting. This was after a trial of limiting who the students saw, essentially dampening the risk of exposure. But this proved to be flawed as COVID patients presented with symptoms that were unexpected.”

To complicate matters, she continued, many medical clinics either shut down, had limited access, or converted to telemedicine. Elective surgeries were canceled. This led to an overall pause in clinical medical student rotations and no direct patient care activities. As social distancing mandates were instituted, licensing examination testing centers were closed, and exams and on-campus activities were postponed.
 

Limiting trainee exposure

On the graduate medical education front, some training programs attempted to limit exposure of their trainees to persons under investigation for COVID-19. “As the number of COVID cases grew and encompassed most of what we were seeing in the hospital, it was obvious that residents had to play a vital part in the care of these patients,” said Dr. Murano, who is also a member of the American Council of Graduate Medical Education’s emergency review and recognition committee. “However, there was a consensus among all of the specialties that the procedures that posed the highest risk of exposure would be limited to the most senior or experienced trainees or professionals, and closely supervised by the faculty.”

ACGME activities such as accreditation site visits, clinical environment learning reviews, self-study, and resident and faculty surveys were suspended, postponed, or modified in some way, she said. The ACGME created stages of COVID status to guide sponsoring institutions to suspend learning curricula in order for patients to be cared for. Stage 1 was business as usual, “so there was no significant impact on patient care,” Dr. Murano said. “Stage 2 was increased but manageable clinical demand, while stage 3 was pandemic emergency status, where there were extraordinary circumstances where the clinical demand was so high and strenuous that the routine patient care and education really needed to be reconfigured in order to care for the patients.”

New requirements to manage training

The ACGME also implemented four requirements to manage training that were consistent among institutions, regardless of their COVID stage status. These included making sure that trainees continued to be held to work-hour limit requirements, ensuring adequate resources for training, ensuring that all residents had the appropriate level of supervision at all times, and allowing fellows to function in the core specialty in which they completed their residency training. “This was only possible if the fellows were ABMS [American Board of Medical Specialties] or AOA [American Osteopathic Association] board-eligible, or certified in their core specialty,” Dr. Murano said. “The fellows had to be appointed to the medical staff at the sponsoring institution, and their time spent on the core specialty service would be limited to 20% of their annual education time in any academic year.”

Mindful that there may have been trainees who required a 2-week quarantine period following exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, some specialty boards showed leniency in residency time required to sit for the written exam. “Testing centers were being forced to close to observe social distancing requirements and heed sanitation recommendations, so exams were either canceled or postponed,” Dr. Murano said. “This posed a special concern for the board certification process, and those specialties with oral examinations had to make a heavy decision regarding whether or not they would allow these exams to take place. Naturally, travel among institutions was suspended or limited, or had quarantine requirements upon returning home from endemic areas. Conferences were either being canceled or converted to virtual formats.”

Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Columbia University, New York, is the internal medicine residency program director and the associate vice-chair of education for the department of medicine, and she recognized the problem created for medical trainees by the changes necessitated by the pandemic.

“The variability in caseloads and clinical exposure has given thrust to the move toward competency-based assessments rather than number- or time-based criteria for determining proficiency and graduation,” she wrote in an email interview. In addition, she noted the impact on medical meetings and the need to adapt. “Early on, before large regional and national conferences adapted to a virtual format, many were canceled altogether. Students, residents, and fellows expecting to have the opportunity to present their scholarly work were suddenly no longer able to do so. Understanding the importance of scholarly interaction, the virtual format of CHEST 2020 is designed with opportunities to present, interact with experts in the field, ask questions, network, and meet mentors.”

No return to ‘normal’

By April 2020, cases in the northeast continued to rise, particularly in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region. “These states were essentially shut down in order to contain spread of the virus,” she said. “This was a real turning point because we realized that things were not going to return to ‘normal’ in the foreseeable future.” With the clinical experience essentially halted for medical students during this time, some medical schools allowed their senior students who met requirements to graduate early. “There were a lot of mixed feelings about this, recognizing that PPE [personal protective equipment] was still in short supply in many areas,” Dr. Murano said. “So, institutions took on these early graduates into roles in which they were not learners in particular, but rather medical workers. They were helping with informatics and technology, telehealth, virtual or telephone call follow-ups, and other tasks like this. There was a movement to virtual learning for the preclinical undergraduate learners, so classes were now online, recorded, or livestreamed.”
 

Early graduation, matching, and residencies

On April 3, the ACGME released a statement regarding graduating students early and appointing them early to the clinical learning environment. “They pointed out that institutions that were in emergency pandemic status lacked the ability to offer the comprehensive orientation and training in PPE and direct supervision required for new residents at the start of their residency,” Dr. Murano said. “Their opinion maintained that graduating medical students matriculate in their previously matched program, the National Resident Match Program start date, or other date that would be nationally determined to be the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year.”

As May 2020 rolled around, the overriding feeling was uncertainty regarding when, if, and how medical schools were going to open in the early summer and fall. “There was also uncertainty about how graduating medical students were going to function in their new role as residents,” she said. “Same for the graduating residents. There were some who had signed contracts for jobs months before, and had them rescinded, and physicians were being furloughed due to financial hardships that institutions faced. There was also postponement of board certification exams, so people were uncertain about when they would become board certified.”

July 2020 ushered in what Dr. Murano characterized as “a whole new level of stress.” For medical students in particular, “we were entering the application season for residency positions,” she said. “Due to travel restrictions placed by various states and institutions, away rotations were limited or nonexistent. Application release dates through the Electronic Residency Application Service were moved to later in the year. The United States Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills exam was suspended, and there were modifications made for Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requirements. Letters of recommendation were also going to be limited, so there had to be some degree of leniency within specialties to take a more holistic approach to review of applications for residencies.”

On the graduate medical education front, the ACGME sunsetted the initial stages and created two categories: nonemergency, which was formerly stages 1 and 2, and emergency, which was formerly stage 3. “All emergency stages are applied for and granted at 1-month intervals,” Dr. Murano said. Board certification exams were modified to accommodate either later exams or online formats, and specialties with oral examinations faced the task of potentially creating virtual oral exams.

Despite the challenges, Dr. Chandra has seen medical training programs respond with new ideas. “The flexibility and agile adaptability of the entire educational enterprise has been remarkable. The inherent uncertainty in a very dynamic and changing learning environment can be challenging. Recognizing this, many programs are creating additional ways to support the mental, emotional, physical, and financial health of students, residents, and fellows and all health care workers. The importance of this innovative response cannot be overstated.”
 

New learning formats

The pandemic forced Dr. Murano and other medical educators to consider unorthodox learning formats, and virtual learning took center stage. “Residency programs had shared national livestream conferences and grand rounds, and there were virtual curricula made for medical students as well as virtual simulation,” she said. “Telemedicine and telehealth really became important parts of education as well, as this may have been the only face-to-face contact that students and residents had with patients who had non–COVID-related complaints.”

To level the playing field for medical residents during this unprecedented time, a work group of the Coalition for Physician Accountability developed a set of recommendations that include limiting the number of letters of recommendation accepted, limiting the number of away rotations, and allowing alternative or less conventional letters of recommendation. “Keeping an open mind and taking a more holistic approach to applicants has really been needed during this time,” Dr. Murano said. “Virtual interview days have been agreed upon for all specialties. They’re safer, and they allow for students to virtually meet faculty and residents from distant programs that in the past would have been a deterrent due to distance and travel costs. This is not without its own downside, as it’s difficult to determine how well a student will fit into a program without [him or her] actually visiting the institution.”

Dr. Chandra agreed that virtual interviews are necessary but have inherent limitations. However, “we will all learn a lot, and very likely the future process will blend the benefits of both virtual and in-person interviews.”
 

‘We need to keep moving forward’

Dr. Murano concluded her presentation by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for growth and innovation in medical education, “so we need to keep moving forward. I’ve heard many say that they can’t wait for things to go back to normal. But I think it’s important to go ahead to new and better ways of learning. We’re now thinking outside of the typical education model and are embracing technology and alternative means of education. We don’t know yet if this education is better, worse, or equivalent to traditional methods, but that will be determined and studied in months and years to come, so we’re certainly looking to the future.”

Dr. Murano and Dr. Chandra reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into the medical education landscape across the entire health care spectrum, disrupting the plans of medical students, residents, fellows, and program directors.

As cases of COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, it became clear to training program directors that immediate action was required to meet the needs of medical learners. The challenges were unlike those surrounding the Ebola virus in 2014, “where we could more easily prevent students and trainees from exposure due to the fact that there were simply not significant numbers of cases in the United States,” Tiffany Murano, MD, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. Dr. Murano is professor of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and president-elect of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine. “COVID was a completely different scenario. We quickly realized that not only was personal protective equipment in short supply, but we also lacked the testing and tracking capabilities for potential exposures. Medical students and other supportive workers who were considered nonessential were removed from the clinical setting. This was after a trial of limiting who the students saw, essentially dampening the risk of exposure. But this proved to be flawed as COVID patients presented with symptoms that were unexpected.”

To complicate matters, she continued, many medical clinics either shut down, had limited access, or converted to telemedicine. Elective surgeries were canceled. This led to an overall pause in clinical medical student rotations and no direct patient care activities. As social distancing mandates were instituted, licensing examination testing centers were closed, and exams and on-campus activities were postponed.
 

Limiting trainee exposure

On the graduate medical education front, some training programs attempted to limit exposure of their trainees to persons under investigation for COVID-19. “As the number of COVID cases grew and encompassed most of what we were seeing in the hospital, it was obvious that residents had to play a vital part in the care of these patients,” said Dr. Murano, who is also a member of the American Council of Graduate Medical Education’s emergency review and recognition committee. “However, there was a consensus among all of the specialties that the procedures that posed the highest risk of exposure would be limited to the most senior or experienced trainees or professionals, and closely supervised by the faculty.”

ACGME activities such as accreditation site visits, clinical environment learning reviews, self-study, and resident and faculty surveys were suspended, postponed, or modified in some way, she said. The ACGME created stages of COVID status to guide sponsoring institutions to suspend learning curricula in order for patients to be cared for. Stage 1 was business as usual, “so there was no significant impact on patient care,” Dr. Murano said. “Stage 2 was increased but manageable clinical demand, while stage 3 was pandemic emergency status, where there were extraordinary circumstances where the clinical demand was so high and strenuous that the routine patient care and education really needed to be reconfigured in order to care for the patients.”

New requirements to manage training

The ACGME also implemented four requirements to manage training that were consistent among institutions, regardless of their COVID stage status. These included making sure that trainees continued to be held to work-hour limit requirements, ensuring adequate resources for training, ensuring that all residents had the appropriate level of supervision at all times, and allowing fellows to function in the core specialty in which they completed their residency training. “This was only possible if the fellows were ABMS [American Board of Medical Specialties] or AOA [American Osteopathic Association] board-eligible, or certified in their core specialty,” Dr. Murano said. “The fellows had to be appointed to the medical staff at the sponsoring institution, and their time spent on the core specialty service would be limited to 20% of their annual education time in any academic year.”

Mindful that there may have been trainees who required a 2-week quarantine period following exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, some specialty boards showed leniency in residency time required to sit for the written exam. “Testing centers were being forced to close to observe social distancing requirements and heed sanitation recommendations, so exams were either canceled or postponed,” Dr. Murano said. “This posed a special concern for the board certification process, and those specialties with oral examinations had to make a heavy decision regarding whether or not they would allow these exams to take place. Naturally, travel among institutions was suspended or limited, or had quarantine requirements upon returning home from endemic areas. Conferences were either being canceled or converted to virtual formats.”

Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Columbia University, New York, is the internal medicine residency program director and the associate vice-chair of education for the department of medicine, and she recognized the problem created for medical trainees by the changes necessitated by the pandemic.

“The variability in caseloads and clinical exposure has given thrust to the move toward competency-based assessments rather than number- or time-based criteria for determining proficiency and graduation,” she wrote in an email interview. In addition, she noted the impact on medical meetings and the need to adapt. “Early on, before large regional and national conferences adapted to a virtual format, many were canceled altogether. Students, residents, and fellows expecting to have the opportunity to present their scholarly work were suddenly no longer able to do so. Understanding the importance of scholarly interaction, the virtual format of CHEST 2020 is designed with opportunities to present, interact with experts in the field, ask questions, network, and meet mentors.”

No return to ‘normal’

By April 2020, cases in the northeast continued to rise, particularly in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region. “These states were essentially shut down in order to contain spread of the virus,” she said. “This was a real turning point because we realized that things were not going to return to ‘normal’ in the foreseeable future.” With the clinical experience essentially halted for medical students during this time, some medical schools allowed their senior students who met requirements to graduate early. “There were a lot of mixed feelings about this, recognizing that PPE [personal protective equipment] was still in short supply in many areas,” Dr. Murano said. “So, institutions took on these early graduates into roles in which they were not learners in particular, but rather medical workers. They were helping with informatics and technology, telehealth, virtual or telephone call follow-ups, and other tasks like this. There was a movement to virtual learning for the preclinical undergraduate learners, so classes were now online, recorded, or livestreamed.”
 

Early graduation, matching, and residencies

On April 3, the ACGME released a statement regarding graduating students early and appointing them early to the clinical learning environment. “They pointed out that institutions that were in emergency pandemic status lacked the ability to offer the comprehensive orientation and training in PPE and direct supervision required for new residents at the start of their residency,” Dr. Murano said. “Their opinion maintained that graduating medical students matriculate in their previously matched program, the National Resident Match Program start date, or other date that would be nationally determined to be the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year.”

As May 2020 rolled around, the overriding feeling was uncertainty regarding when, if, and how medical schools were going to open in the early summer and fall. “There was also uncertainty about how graduating medical students were going to function in their new role as residents,” she said. “Same for the graduating residents. There were some who had signed contracts for jobs months before, and had them rescinded, and physicians were being furloughed due to financial hardships that institutions faced. There was also postponement of board certification exams, so people were uncertain about when they would become board certified.”

July 2020 ushered in what Dr. Murano characterized as “a whole new level of stress.” For medical students in particular, “we were entering the application season for residency positions,” she said. “Due to travel restrictions placed by various states and institutions, away rotations were limited or nonexistent. Application release dates through the Electronic Residency Application Service were moved to later in the year. The United States Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills exam was suspended, and there were modifications made for Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requirements. Letters of recommendation were also going to be limited, so there had to be some degree of leniency within specialties to take a more holistic approach to review of applications for residencies.”

On the graduate medical education front, the ACGME sunsetted the initial stages and created two categories: nonemergency, which was formerly stages 1 and 2, and emergency, which was formerly stage 3. “All emergency stages are applied for and granted at 1-month intervals,” Dr. Murano said. Board certification exams were modified to accommodate either later exams or online formats, and specialties with oral examinations faced the task of potentially creating virtual oral exams.

Despite the challenges, Dr. Chandra has seen medical training programs respond with new ideas. “The flexibility and agile adaptability of the entire educational enterprise has been remarkable. The inherent uncertainty in a very dynamic and changing learning environment can be challenging. Recognizing this, many programs are creating additional ways to support the mental, emotional, physical, and financial health of students, residents, and fellows and all health care workers. The importance of this innovative response cannot be overstated.”
 

New learning formats

The pandemic forced Dr. Murano and other medical educators to consider unorthodox learning formats, and virtual learning took center stage. “Residency programs had shared national livestream conferences and grand rounds, and there were virtual curricula made for medical students as well as virtual simulation,” she said. “Telemedicine and telehealth really became important parts of education as well, as this may have been the only face-to-face contact that students and residents had with patients who had non–COVID-related complaints.”

To level the playing field for medical residents during this unprecedented time, a work group of the Coalition for Physician Accountability developed a set of recommendations that include limiting the number of letters of recommendation accepted, limiting the number of away rotations, and allowing alternative or less conventional letters of recommendation. “Keeping an open mind and taking a more holistic approach to applicants has really been needed during this time,” Dr. Murano said. “Virtual interview days have been agreed upon for all specialties. They’re safer, and they allow for students to virtually meet faculty and residents from distant programs that in the past would have been a deterrent due to distance and travel costs. This is not without its own downside, as it’s difficult to determine how well a student will fit into a program without [him or her] actually visiting the institution.”

Dr. Chandra agreed that virtual interviews are necessary but have inherent limitations. However, “we will all learn a lot, and very likely the future process will blend the benefits of both virtual and in-person interviews.”
 

‘We need to keep moving forward’

Dr. Murano concluded her presentation by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for growth and innovation in medical education, “so we need to keep moving forward. I’ve heard many say that they can’t wait for things to go back to normal. But I think it’s important to go ahead to new and better ways of learning. We’re now thinking outside of the typical education model and are embracing technology and alternative means of education. We don’t know yet if this education is better, worse, or equivalent to traditional methods, but that will be determined and studied in months and years to come, so we’re certainly looking to the future.”

Dr. Murano and Dr. Chandra reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

When Rodney Vivian, MD, a psychiatrist in Cincinnati, was sued for medical malpractice after a psychiatric inpatient died by suicide, he recalls being naive about the process and how difficult it would be. “I was thinking that truth and common sense would prevail. How stupid I was,” he said.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

Although Dr. Vivian, who was at the time the medical director of a hospital psychiatric unit in Ohio, was found not liable in two appeals, the legal process dragged on for 6 years, creating an emotional roller coaster of sadness, fear, vulnerability, and anxiety.

“The lawsuit took a big chunk out of me, and there was a sense of unfairness. It was incredibly humiliating and destructive; and it did not make me a better person or psychiatrist,” Dr. Vivian said.

Dr. Vivian is just one of the many psychiatrists who have had their world turned upside down after a patient suicide. When such events occur, grief-stricken families often point the finger at the treating psychiatrist. Although lawsuits are rare in psychiatry, patient suicide can lead to a myriad of emotional, legal, and career consequences.

Tyler Black, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, likens patient suicide to “a nuclear bomb” but emphasizes the importance of not classifying such events as a medical error or assigning blame.

“Starting with the assumption that suicide is always avoidable is not evidence based,” Dr. Black said.

Although patient suicide can occur across medicine, the odds are alarmingly high in psychiatry.

“There’s at least a 50-50 chance that a psychiatrist is going to face the suicide of a patient,” said Eric Plakun, MD, medical director/CEO at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Mass. a hospital-based facility that offers a continuum of psychiatric treatment. Quoting forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, Dr. Plakun said: “There are two kinds of psychiatrists – those who have had a patient die by suicide, and those who will.”

Research from 2015 shows that, among specialists, psychiatrists are among the least likely to be sued. A 2007/2008 Physician Survey from the American Medical Association showed that 22.2% of psychiatrists had been sued for malpractice; the probability that they would face a claim each year was only 2.6%. However, failure to prevent suicide is one of the top reasons for lawsuits.

One report from 2008 suggests that 20%-68% of psychiatrists will lose a patient to suicide. A report cowritten by Dr. Plakun in 2005 notes that about one in six psychiatric interns and one in three psychiatric residents will experience a patient suicide some time during their training. The authors added that 50% of all psychiatrists will have a patient die by suicide during their career. That risk stays at about 50% for future patients even after a clinician experiences the death of a previous patient.

Although mental health professionals prevail in up to 80% of suicide-related malpractice cases, such events are still emotionally devastating for everyone involved.

Experts, including Dr. Black, say it is important for clinicians to not “turn inward” but rather talk with colleagues in a safe setting. When a patient dies by suicide, it is a huge event, he noted. “It fuels a lot of fear and a lot of guilt, worry, and sadness.”

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, noted that patient suicide will happen.

The problem with many administrators who talk about a target of “zero suicide” is that when suicide does occur, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that someone is to blame, said Dr. Appelbaum, who is also director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. “That’s not necessarily true and contributes to finger-pointing.”
 

Stopping the blame game

Dr. Black’s first experience as a psychiatry resident was arriving at the hospital and finding the body of a patient who had died by suicide by hanging. Although he did not know the patient, Dr. Black said he had a strong emotional response that was coupled with an intense and sometimes confusing reaction by the hospital administration, including what he called “nonsensical banning” of pencils on the ward.

Dr. Black is now the medical director of emergency psychiatry at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and specializes in suicidology and emergency/crisis youth mental health care. He said during a recent live chat on Twitter that he does not predict suicide but instead “assesses risk,” meaning he examines potential risk factors in his patients.

“If systems and administrators (and consulting doctors) could recognize this, the ‘blame game’ would severely decrease. From the advocacy end, we have to stop seeing suicide as a ‘medical error,’ ” Dr. Black tweeted.

“There’s a strong administrative push, especially in the face of suicide, to dive into the [occurrence] as if it must be that an error was made,” he said in an interview.

To help counteract any potential finger-pointing, Dr. Black created a free-to-download patient risk assessment document called the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI) for use at every patient visit.

“ASARI was designed to walk an assessor through their thinking process such that they can put all of their thoughts down on one piece of paper. It makes it a better communication document, and it’s definitely better medicolegal documentation,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, although having documentation is beneficial, “I don’t think that you necessarily need to separate actions that are ‘protective’ from actions that are intended to help a patient.”

However, he pointed out that, if a psychiatrist conforms to or exceeds the standard of care, including conducting appropriate suicide risk assessments, developing an appropriate treatment plan, and keeping comprehensive documentation, these measures “should provide an effective defense to claims of malpractice or negligence.”
 

‘Horrendous event’

Dr. Vivian said that, during his 40-year career in psychiatry, there have been about 12 “office patients” who died by suicide. However, nothing prepared him for the fallout from a lawsuit.

In 2010, a patient who had overdosed was transferred to the psychiatric unit of Mercy Health–Clermont (Ohio) Hospital, where Dr. Vivian was the admitting physician. Although the hospital staff was ordered to check on her every 15 minutes, her husband found her unconscious from a hanging attempt when he came to visit the next evening. After she was transferred to the ICU, she was taken off life support and died a few days later.

“It was a horrendous event,” Dr. Vivian said.

The family sued the hospital, and the matter was settled out of court without Dr. Vivian’s knowledge. The family also filed a separate lawsuit against Dr. Vivian, which went to trial 3 years later.

“My insurance company’s claims person was very supportive and wanted me to not settle. She agreed that I didn’t do anything wrong and that I needed to face this,” he added.

In the first trial, a jury found Dr. Vivian not liable. Six months later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal. A year after the first trial, the court of appeals also came back with a new ruling in his favor and, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.

Dr. Vivian noted that there really are no winners in these situations. “Even though the jury ruled in my favor, there was never a sense of ‘success.’ I could never feel good about what happened.” He was told the insurance company spent more than $300,000 on his defense.

Although he no longer performs psychiatric inpatient admissions, Dr. Vivian continues to work in private practice and provides psychiatric consultation to patients at a local medical center.

“I consider my work as a blessing in my life, and I continue to learn from my patients,” he said.
 

‘Will I be sued?’

Dr. Appelbaum noted there is a difference between a malpractice claim that may be filed and a “payout” to plaintiffs because of a negotiated resolution of a case or an award that is made at trial.

Malpractice insurers may raise the rates of a physician who has been found at fault in one or more legal actions in which financial settlements have been paid out, he said.

The issue in any malpractice case is whether the psychiatrist met the standard of care, which is traditionally defined as “skill and learning that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing.”

“No physician is expected to be the guarantor of a good outcome of a case. Sometimes things go wrong. Merely because there’s a bad outcome, merely because a suicide has occurred, doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist was negligent,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

He believes all large centers should have a “clear-cut plan” in place to assist clinicians in the event of a patient suicide. Such plans should help in dealing with stress from losing a patient and should provide guidance about how to handle any potential lawsuit.

For those worried that a patient’s suicide will shadow them through their career, Dr. Appelbaum said that it can happen, especially in cases involving a financial settlement against the clinician.

Such cases must be reported to the national practitioner data bank, where they can be accessed by any licensing body in any state when physicians apply for a medical license.

In addition, Dr. Appelbaum pointed out that licensure, medical staff, and malpractice applications typically require disclosure of a history of successful or unsuccessful claims filed against a physician. Although that may be limited to the past 10 years, the requirement can go on indefinitely.
 

Beware how you share

Dr. Plakun noted that there is a sense of isolation for a clinician in cases of patient suicide and that physicians often turn inward. He added that, although it is important to talk with others, in institutions, this is best done in a “peer-review, protected space” – and perhaps with a lawyer present.

However, Dr. Appelbaum warned that sharing information, even in this type of setting, may not offer legal protection. Talking to others in order to get some emotional support is permitted once the statute of limitations for filing a claim has lapsed or if a claim has been closed.

Discussing a case of patient suicide with peers prior to that can have serious legal implications, he added. Colleagues can be called to testify in any resulting legal case and disclose what was said during such conversations.

“The typical advice that a risk manager, a claims manager, or an attorney would give to a clinician is, don’t talk to other people about it other than the lawyer or claims manager who’s dealing with the case,” he noted.

That said, there are three general exceptions to this rule. These include attorney-client privilege, any matters discussed with the physician’s own therapist, and, “depending on the state, there are varying protections for what’s considered ‘peer review.’ ”

For instance, when hospitals implement a formal review process after an event, what is said during discovery may be protected. However, not all states have such protection. That’s why it is important to understand what the law is in your particular state, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Support for psychiatrists

Kaz J. Nelson, MD, psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, also works with high-risk populations, including those with acute suicidality and self-injury.

During a recent chat on patient suicide, Dr. Nelson tweeted: “Sadly in our field, suicide is not an IF but a WHEN. Don’t keep the inevitable shame and sadness to yourself.”

Dr. Nelson agreed with Dr. Black that it’s important to look into these occurrences as a quality improvement measure, but not as a way to assign blame. Preparing for potential patient loss “and having very solid, very supportive, very inclusive ‘postvention’ procedures” is critical, she noted. “When you don’t have these policies and procedures in place and have them very transparent, it creates a culture of silence around the issue.”

Dr. Plakun reiterated the importance of not staying silent. “We can’t simply surrender to the idea of not talking about patient suicide. We have to find a way to speak.”

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

When Rodney Vivian, MD, a psychiatrist in Cincinnati, was sued for medical malpractice after a psychiatric inpatient died by suicide, he recalls being naive about the process and how difficult it would be. “I was thinking that truth and common sense would prevail. How stupid I was,” he said.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

Although Dr. Vivian, who was at the time the medical director of a hospital psychiatric unit in Ohio, was found not liable in two appeals, the legal process dragged on for 6 years, creating an emotional roller coaster of sadness, fear, vulnerability, and anxiety.

“The lawsuit took a big chunk out of me, and there was a sense of unfairness. It was incredibly humiliating and destructive; and it did not make me a better person or psychiatrist,” Dr. Vivian said.

Dr. Vivian is just one of the many psychiatrists who have had their world turned upside down after a patient suicide. When such events occur, grief-stricken families often point the finger at the treating psychiatrist. Although lawsuits are rare in psychiatry, patient suicide can lead to a myriad of emotional, legal, and career consequences.

Tyler Black, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, likens patient suicide to “a nuclear bomb” but emphasizes the importance of not classifying such events as a medical error or assigning blame.

“Starting with the assumption that suicide is always avoidable is not evidence based,” Dr. Black said.

Although patient suicide can occur across medicine, the odds are alarmingly high in psychiatry.

“There’s at least a 50-50 chance that a psychiatrist is going to face the suicide of a patient,” said Eric Plakun, MD, medical director/CEO at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Mass. a hospital-based facility that offers a continuum of psychiatric treatment. Quoting forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, Dr. Plakun said: “There are two kinds of psychiatrists – those who have had a patient die by suicide, and those who will.”

Research from 2015 shows that, among specialists, psychiatrists are among the least likely to be sued. A 2007/2008 Physician Survey from the American Medical Association showed that 22.2% of psychiatrists had been sued for malpractice; the probability that they would face a claim each year was only 2.6%. However, failure to prevent suicide is one of the top reasons for lawsuits.

One report from 2008 suggests that 20%-68% of psychiatrists will lose a patient to suicide. A report cowritten by Dr. Plakun in 2005 notes that about one in six psychiatric interns and one in three psychiatric residents will experience a patient suicide some time during their training. The authors added that 50% of all psychiatrists will have a patient die by suicide during their career. That risk stays at about 50% for future patients even after a clinician experiences the death of a previous patient.

Although mental health professionals prevail in up to 80% of suicide-related malpractice cases, such events are still emotionally devastating for everyone involved.

Experts, including Dr. Black, say it is important for clinicians to not “turn inward” but rather talk with colleagues in a safe setting. When a patient dies by suicide, it is a huge event, he noted. “It fuels a lot of fear and a lot of guilt, worry, and sadness.”

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, noted that patient suicide will happen.

The problem with many administrators who talk about a target of “zero suicide” is that when suicide does occur, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that someone is to blame, said Dr. Appelbaum, who is also director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. “That’s not necessarily true and contributes to finger-pointing.”
 

Stopping the blame game

Dr. Black’s first experience as a psychiatry resident was arriving at the hospital and finding the body of a patient who had died by suicide by hanging. Although he did not know the patient, Dr. Black said he had a strong emotional response that was coupled with an intense and sometimes confusing reaction by the hospital administration, including what he called “nonsensical banning” of pencils on the ward.

Dr. Black is now the medical director of emergency psychiatry at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and specializes in suicidology and emergency/crisis youth mental health care. He said during a recent live chat on Twitter that he does not predict suicide but instead “assesses risk,” meaning he examines potential risk factors in his patients.

“If systems and administrators (and consulting doctors) could recognize this, the ‘blame game’ would severely decrease. From the advocacy end, we have to stop seeing suicide as a ‘medical error,’ ” Dr. Black tweeted.

“There’s a strong administrative push, especially in the face of suicide, to dive into the [occurrence] as if it must be that an error was made,” he said in an interview.

To help counteract any potential finger-pointing, Dr. Black created a free-to-download patient risk assessment document called the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI) for use at every patient visit.

“ASARI was designed to walk an assessor through their thinking process such that they can put all of their thoughts down on one piece of paper. It makes it a better communication document, and it’s definitely better medicolegal documentation,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, although having documentation is beneficial, “I don’t think that you necessarily need to separate actions that are ‘protective’ from actions that are intended to help a patient.”

However, he pointed out that, if a psychiatrist conforms to or exceeds the standard of care, including conducting appropriate suicide risk assessments, developing an appropriate treatment plan, and keeping comprehensive documentation, these measures “should provide an effective defense to claims of malpractice or negligence.”
 

‘Horrendous event’

Dr. Vivian said that, during his 40-year career in psychiatry, there have been about 12 “office patients” who died by suicide. However, nothing prepared him for the fallout from a lawsuit.

In 2010, a patient who had overdosed was transferred to the psychiatric unit of Mercy Health–Clermont (Ohio) Hospital, where Dr. Vivian was the admitting physician. Although the hospital staff was ordered to check on her every 15 minutes, her husband found her unconscious from a hanging attempt when he came to visit the next evening. After she was transferred to the ICU, she was taken off life support and died a few days later.

“It was a horrendous event,” Dr. Vivian said.

The family sued the hospital, and the matter was settled out of court without Dr. Vivian’s knowledge. The family also filed a separate lawsuit against Dr. Vivian, which went to trial 3 years later.

“My insurance company’s claims person was very supportive and wanted me to not settle. She agreed that I didn’t do anything wrong and that I needed to face this,” he added.

In the first trial, a jury found Dr. Vivian not liable. Six months later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal. A year after the first trial, the court of appeals also came back with a new ruling in his favor and, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.

Dr. Vivian noted that there really are no winners in these situations. “Even though the jury ruled in my favor, there was never a sense of ‘success.’ I could never feel good about what happened.” He was told the insurance company spent more than $300,000 on his defense.

Although he no longer performs psychiatric inpatient admissions, Dr. Vivian continues to work in private practice and provides psychiatric consultation to patients at a local medical center.

“I consider my work as a blessing in my life, and I continue to learn from my patients,” he said.
 

‘Will I be sued?’

Dr. Appelbaum noted there is a difference between a malpractice claim that may be filed and a “payout” to plaintiffs because of a negotiated resolution of a case or an award that is made at trial.

Malpractice insurers may raise the rates of a physician who has been found at fault in one or more legal actions in which financial settlements have been paid out, he said.

The issue in any malpractice case is whether the psychiatrist met the standard of care, which is traditionally defined as “skill and learning that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing.”

“No physician is expected to be the guarantor of a good outcome of a case. Sometimes things go wrong. Merely because there’s a bad outcome, merely because a suicide has occurred, doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist was negligent,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

He believes all large centers should have a “clear-cut plan” in place to assist clinicians in the event of a patient suicide. Such plans should help in dealing with stress from losing a patient and should provide guidance about how to handle any potential lawsuit.

For those worried that a patient’s suicide will shadow them through their career, Dr. Appelbaum said that it can happen, especially in cases involving a financial settlement against the clinician.

Such cases must be reported to the national practitioner data bank, where they can be accessed by any licensing body in any state when physicians apply for a medical license.

In addition, Dr. Appelbaum pointed out that licensure, medical staff, and malpractice applications typically require disclosure of a history of successful or unsuccessful claims filed against a physician. Although that may be limited to the past 10 years, the requirement can go on indefinitely.
 

Beware how you share

Dr. Plakun noted that there is a sense of isolation for a clinician in cases of patient suicide and that physicians often turn inward. He added that, although it is important to talk with others, in institutions, this is best done in a “peer-review, protected space” – and perhaps with a lawyer present.

However, Dr. Appelbaum warned that sharing information, even in this type of setting, may not offer legal protection. Talking to others in order to get some emotional support is permitted once the statute of limitations for filing a claim has lapsed or if a claim has been closed.

Discussing a case of patient suicide with peers prior to that can have serious legal implications, he added. Colleagues can be called to testify in any resulting legal case and disclose what was said during such conversations.

“The typical advice that a risk manager, a claims manager, or an attorney would give to a clinician is, don’t talk to other people about it other than the lawyer or claims manager who’s dealing with the case,” he noted.

That said, there are three general exceptions to this rule. These include attorney-client privilege, any matters discussed with the physician’s own therapist, and, “depending on the state, there are varying protections for what’s considered ‘peer review.’ ”

For instance, when hospitals implement a formal review process after an event, what is said during discovery may be protected. However, not all states have such protection. That’s why it is important to understand what the law is in your particular state, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Support for psychiatrists

Kaz J. Nelson, MD, psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, also works with high-risk populations, including those with acute suicidality and self-injury.

During a recent chat on patient suicide, Dr. Nelson tweeted: “Sadly in our field, suicide is not an IF but a WHEN. Don’t keep the inevitable shame and sadness to yourself.”

Dr. Nelson agreed with Dr. Black that it’s important to look into these occurrences as a quality improvement measure, but not as a way to assign blame. Preparing for potential patient loss “and having very solid, very supportive, very inclusive ‘postvention’ procedures” is critical, she noted. “When you don’t have these policies and procedures in place and have them very transparent, it creates a culture of silence around the issue.”

Dr. Plakun reiterated the importance of not staying silent. “We can’t simply surrender to the idea of not talking about patient suicide. We have to find a way to speak.”

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

When Rodney Vivian, MD, a psychiatrist in Cincinnati, was sued for medical malpractice after a psychiatric inpatient died by suicide, he recalls being naive about the process and how difficult it would be. “I was thinking that truth and common sense would prevail. How stupid I was,” he said.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

Although Dr. Vivian, who was at the time the medical director of a hospital psychiatric unit in Ohio, was found not liable in two appeals, the legal process dragged on for 6 years, creating an emotional roller coaster of sadness, fear, vulnerability, and anxiety.

“The lawsuit took a big chunk out of me, and there was a sense of unfairness. It was incredibly humiliating and destructive; and it did not make me a better person or psychiatrist,” Dr. Vivian said.

Dr. Vivian is just one of the many psychiatrists who have had their world turned upside down after a patient suicide. When such events occur, grief-stricken families often point the finger at the treating psychiatrist. Although lawsuits are rare in psychiatry, patient suicide can lead to a myriad of emotional, legal, and career consequences.

Tyler Black, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, likens patient suicide to “a nuclear bomb” but emphasizes the importance of not classifying such events as a medical error or assigning blame.

“Starting with the assumption that suicide is always avoidable is not evidence based,” Dr. Black said.

Although patient suicide can occur across medicine, the odds are alarmingly high in psychiatry.

“There’s at least a 50-50 chance that a psychiatrist is going to face the suicide of a patient,” said Eric Plakun, MD, medical director/CEO at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Mass. a hospital-based facility that offers a continuum of psychiatric treatment. Quoting forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, Dr. Plakun said: “There are two kinds of psychiatrists – those who have had a patient die by suicide, and those who will.”

Research from 2015 shows that, among specialists, psychiatrists are among the least likely to be sued. A 2007/2008 Physician Survey from the American Medical Association showed that 22.2% of psychiatrists had been sued for malpractice; the probability that they would face a claim each year was only 2.6%. However, failure to prevent suicide is one of the top reasons for lawsuits.

One report from 2008 suggests that 20%-68% of psychiatrists will lose a patient to suicide. A report cowritten by Dr. Plakun in 2005 notes that about one in six psychiatric interns and one in three psychiatric residents will experience a patient suicide some time during their training. The authors added that 50% of all psychiatrists will have a patient die by suicide during their career. That risk stays at about 50% for future patients even after a clinician experiences the death of a previous patient.

Although mental health professionals prevail in up to 80% of suicide-related malpractice cases, such events are still emotionally devastating for everyone involved.

Experts, including Dr. Black, say it is important for clinicians to not “turn inward” but rather talk with colleagues in a safe setting. When a patient dies by suicide, it is a huge event, he noted. “It fuels a lot of fear and a lot of guilt, worry, and sadness.”

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, noted that patient suicide will happen.

The problem with many administrators who talk about a target of “zero suicide” is that when suicide does occur, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that someone is to blame, said Dr. Appelbaum, who is also director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. “That’s not necessarily true and contributes to finger-pointing.”
 

Stopping the blame game

Dr. Black’s first experience as a psychiatry resident was arriving at the hospital and finding the body of a patient who had died by suicide by hanging. Although he did not know the patient, Dr. Black said he had a strong emotional response that was coupled with an intense and sometimes confusing reaction by the hospital administration, including what he called “nonsensical banning” of pencils on the ward.

Dr. Black is now the medical director of emergency psychiatry at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and specializes in suicidology and emergency/crisis youth mental health care. He said during a recent live chat on Twitter that he does not predict suicide but instead “assesses risk,” meaning he examines potential risk factors in his patients.

“If systems and administrators (and consulting doctors) could recognize this, the ‘blame game’ would severely decrease. From the advocacy end, we have to stop seeing suicide as a ‘medical error,’ ” Dr. Black tweeted.

“There’s a strong administrative push, especially in the face of suicide, to dive into the [occurrence] as if it must be that an error was made,” he said in an interview.

To help counteract any potential finger-pointing, Dr. Black created a free-to-download patient risk assessment document called the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI) for use at every patient visit.

“ASARI was designed to walk an assessor through their thinking process such that they can put all of their thoughts down on one piece of paper. It makes it a better communication document, and it’s definitely better medicolegal documentation,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, although having documentation is beneficial, “I don’t think that you necessarily need to separate actions that are ‘protective’ from actions that are intended to help a patient.”

However, he pointed out that, if a psychiatrist conforms to or exceeds the standard of care, including conducting appropriate suicide risk assessments, developing an appropriate treatment plan, and keeping comprehensive documentation, these measures “should provide an effective defense to claims of malpractice or negligence.”
 

‘Horrendous event’

Dr. Vivian said that, during his 40-year career in psychiatry, there have been about 12 “office patients” who died by suicide. However, nothing prepared him for the fallout from a lawsuit.

In 2010, a patient who had overdosed was transferred to the psychiatric unit of Mercy Health–Clermont (Ohio) Hospital, where Dr. Vivian was the admitting physician. Although the hospital staff was ordered to check on her every 15 minutes, her husband found her unconscious from a hanging attempt when he came to visit the next evening. After she was transferred to the ICU, she was taken off life support and died a few days later.

“It was a horrendous event,” Dr. Vivian said.

The family sued the hospital, and the matter was settled out of court without Dr. Vivian’s knowledge. The family also filed a separate lawsuit against Dr. Vivian, which went to trial 3 years later.

“My insurance company’s claims person was very supportive and wanted me to not settle. She agreed that I didn’t do anything wrong and that I needed to face this,” he added.

In the first trial, a jury found Dr. Vivian not liable. Six months later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal. A year after the first trial, the court of appeals also came back with a new ruling in his favor and, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.

Dr. Vivian noted that there really are no winners in these situations. “Even though the jury ruled in my favor, there was never a sense of ‘success.’ I could never feel good about what happened.” He was told the insurance company spent more than $300,000 on his defense.

Although he no longer performs psychiatric inpatient admissions, Dr. Vivian continues to work in private practice and provides psychiatric consultation to patients at a local medical center.

“I consider my work as a blessing in my life, and I continue to learn from my patients,” he said.
 

‘Will I be sued?’

Dr. Appelbaum noted there is a difference between a malpractice claim that may be filed and a “payout” to plaintiffs because of a negotiated resolution of a case or an award that is made at trial.

Malpractice insurers may raise the rates of a physician who has been found at fault in one or more legal actions in which financial settlements have been paid out, he said.

The issue in any malpractice case is whether the psychiatrist met the standard of care, which is traditionally defined as “skill and learning that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing.”

“No physician is expected to be the guarantor of a good outcome of a case. Sometimes things go wrong. Merely because there’s a bad outcome, merely because a suicide has occurred, doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist was negligent,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

He believes all large centers should have a “clear-cut plan” in place to assist clinicians in the event of a patient suicide. Such plans should help in dealing with stress from losing a patient and should provide guidance about how to handle any potential lawsuit.

For those worried that a patient’s suicide will shadow them through their career, Dr. Appelbaum said that it can happen, especially in cases involving a financial settlement against the clinician.

Such cases must be reported to the national practitioner data bank, where they can be accessed by any licensing body in any state when physicians apply for a medical license.

In addition, Dr. Appelbaum pointed out that licensure, medical staff, and malpractice applications typically require disclosure of a history of successful or unsuccessful claims filed against a physician. Although that may be limited to the past 10 years, the requirement can go on indefinitely.
 

Beware how you share

Dr. Plakun noted that there is a sense of isolation for a clinician in cases of patient suicide and that physicians often turn inward. He added that, although it is important to talk with others, in institutions, this is best done in a “peer-review, protected space” – and perhaps with a lawyer present.

However, Dr. Appelbaum warned that sharing information, even in this type of setting, may not offer legal protection. Talking to others in order to get some emotional support is permitted once the statute of limitations for filing a claim has lapsed or if a claim has been closed.

Discussing a case of patient suicide with peers prior to that can have serious legal implications, he added. Colleagues can be called to testify in any resulting legal case and disclose what was said during such conversations.

“The typical advice that a risk manager, a claims manager, or an attorney would give to a clinician is, don’t talk to other people about it other than the lawyer or claims manager who’s dealing with the case,” he noted.

That said, there are three general exceptions to this rule. These include attorney-client privilege, any matters discussed with the physician’s own therapist, and, “depending on the state, there are varying protections for what’s considered ‘peer review.’ ”

For instance, when hospitals implement a formal review process after an event, what is said during discovery may be protected. However, not all states have such protection. That’s why it is important to understand what the law is in your particular state, said Dr. Appelbaum.
 

Support for psychiatrists

Kaz J. Nelson, MD, psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, also works with high-risk populations, including those with acute suicidality and self-injury.

During a recent chat on patient suicide, Dr. Nelson tweeted: “Sadly in our field, suicide is not an IF but a WHEN. Don’t keep the inevitable shame and sadness to yourself.”

Dr. Nelson agreed with Dr. Black that it’s important to look into these occurrences as a quality improvement measure, but not as a way to assign blame. Preparing for potential patient loss “and having very solid, very supportive, very inclusive ‘postvention’ procedures” is critical, she noted. “When you don’t have these policies and procedures in place and have them very transparent, it creates a culture of silence around the issue.”

Dr. Plakun reiterated the importance of not staying silent. “We can’t simply surrender to the idea of not talking about patient suicide. We have to find a way to speak.”

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

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

Intravascular lithotripsy proved highly effective, safe, and user friendly as an adjunct to stenting for severely calcified coronary lesions at 30 days of follow-up in the pivotal Disrupt CAD III study aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.

The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.

Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.

“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.

Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.

This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.

Key outcomes

The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.

The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.

The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm².

Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.

At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.

Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.

“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
 

The reaction

At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.

“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.

Intravascular lithotripsy proved highly effective, safe, and user friendly as an adjunct to stenting for severely calcified coronary lesions at 30 days of follow-up in the pivotal Disrupt CAD III study aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.

The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.

Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.

“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.

Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.

This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.

Key outcomes

The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.

The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.

The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm².

Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.

At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.

Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.

“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
 

The reaction

At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.

“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.

Intravascular lithotripsy proved highly effective, safe, and user friendly as an adjunct to stenting for severely calcified coronary lesions at 30 days of follow-up in the pivotal Disrupt CAD III study aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.

The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.

Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.

“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.

Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.

This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.

Key outcomes

The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.

The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.

The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm².

Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.

At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.

Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.

“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
 

The reaction

At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.

“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.

Abnormal mitochondrial activity in pain-processing areas of the brain may explain why some persons with type 2 diabetes experience painful peripheral neuropathy while others do not, new U.K. study findings have suggested.

A greater ratio of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) – “the cellular energy currency of all life” – to phosphocreatine (PCr) was observed in the somatosensory cortex and right thalamus in those with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Importantly, this correlated with neuropathic pain symptom intensity as measured by the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) and the Doleur Neuroathique en 4 (DN4).

The findings suggest that altered cerebral phosphorus metabolite ratios may serve as a biomarker of DPN, said the study’s investigators.

“Normally the ATP:Cr ratio will be unaltered, but there’s stress to the brain that might change,” Gordon Sloan, a clinical research fellow within the Diabetes Research Unit at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (England) said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

DPN affects around a quarter of patients with type 2 diabetes but treatments are “inadequate”, and “unfortunately fewer than a third of individuals receive 50% or greater pain relief from current neuropathic pain treatments,” Mr. Sloan said. “Ultimately, this lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of the condition is therefore clear rationale to investigate the disease mechanisms further and to find novel targets for treatments,” he added.


 

Brain metabolites offer clues to neuropathic pain levels

The thalamus and primary somatosensory cortex are two key areas of the brain that are involved in the perception of painful stimuli, Mr. Sloan explained. “The thalamus receives most of the slowest sensory impulses from the peripheral nervous system modulating and processing them for relaying the signals to the rest of the pain matrix, including the somatosensory cortex where these sensations are interpreted and localized.”

Prior imaging work by Mr. Sloan’s group and others have shown that there are alterations in the functioning of both these brain areas in those with painful DPN versus healthy volunteers and those with type 2 diabetes but no DPN. So for their current study, Mr. Sloan and associates from Sheffield University and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, used an advanced imaging method – phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) – to scan the thalamus and somatosensory cortex of 43 persons with type 2 diabetes and 12 healthy volunteers. Of those with diabetes, 11 had no DPN, 12 had DPN but were not currently in pain, and 20 had painful DPN.

From the scans, three phosphorus metabolite ratios were calculated, which gave an indication of mitochondrial activity: first, the ATP to PCr ratio, which gives a measure of cellular energy status; second, the ATP to inorganic phosphate (Pi) ratio, which measures oxidative phosphorylation; and third, the ratio of phosphomonoesters (PME) to phosphodiesters (PDE), which gives a measure of cell membrane turnover.

“We have measured the ratio of high-energy phosphate levels which are an indirect representation of the balance between energy generation, reserve and usage in the brain,” Mr. Sloan said.

The subjects studied were of a similar age, around 63 years on average, and well matched in terms of their sex and body mass index. Those with diabetes of course had higher blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin than did the healthy volunteers during the scans. Among those with diabetes, those with DPN were significantly more likely to have a longer duration of diabetes (12.5 years for painful DPN and 15.8 years for nonpainful DPN) than were those with no DPN (8.7 years).

Furthermore, those with DPN had higher scores on the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) than did those without, although there was not much difference between those with painful or nonpainful DPN. On the other had, those with painful DPN were more likely to have higher scores when using the Doleur Neuroathique en 4 (DN4) to assess their pain level.

Results showed significant changes in cerebral cellular bioenergetics in the pain processing regions of the brain in those with painful DPN. The ATP:PCr at the thalamus and at the somatosensory cortex was significantly higher in those with painful DPN, compared with healthy volunteers. The other measures of phosphorus metabolite levels (ATP:Pi and PME:PDE) were unaltered.

“We hypothesize that the findings of the study are suggestive of increased energy demands in regions of pain perception due to increased neuronal activity” said Dr. Sloan.

The study’s results add further evidence for cerebral alterations playing a key role in the generation and maintenance of pain in painful DPN.

SOURCE: Sloan S et al. EASD 2020, oral presentation 181.




 

Abnormal mitochondrial activity in pain-processing areas of the brain may explain why some persons with type 2 diabetes experience painful peripheral neuropathy while others do not, new U.K. study findings have suggested.

A greater ratio of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) – “the cellular energy currency of all life” – to phosphocreatine (PCr) was observed in the somatosensory cortex and right thalamus in those with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Importantly, this correlated with neuropathic pain symptom intensity as measured by the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) and the Doleur Neuroathique en 4 (DN4).

The findings suggest that altered cerebral phosphorus metabolite ratios may serve as a biomarker of DPN, said the study’s investigators.

“Normally the ATP:Cr ratio will be unaltered, but there’s stress to the brain that might change,” Gordon Sloan, a clinical research fellow within the Diabetes Research Unit at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (England) said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

DPN affects around a quarter of patients with type 2 diabetes but treatments are “inadequate”, and “unfortunately fewer than a third of individuals receive 50% or greater pain relief from current neuropathic pain treatments,” Mr. Sloan said. “Ultimately, this lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of the condition is therefore clear rationale to investigate the disease mechanisms further and to find novel targets for treatments,” he added.


 

Brain metabolites offer clues to neuropathic pain levels

The thalamus and primary somatosensory cortex are two key areas of the brain that are involved in the perception of painful stimuli, Mr. Sloan explained. “The thalamus receives most of the slowest sensory impulses from the peripheral nervous system modulating and processing them for relaying the signals to the rest of the pain matrix, including the somatosensory cortex where these sensations are interpreted and localized.”

Prior imaging work by Mr. Sloan’s group and others have shown that there are alterations in the functioning of both these brain areas in those with painful DPN versus healthy volunteers and those with type 2 diabetes but no DPN. So for their current study, Mr. Sloan and associates from Sheffield University and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, used an advanced imaging method – phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) – to scan the thalamus and somatosensory cortex of 43 persons with type 2 diabetes and 12 healthy volunteers. Of those with diabetes, 11 had no DPN, 12 had DPN but were not currently in pain, and 20 had painful DPN.

From the scans, three phosphorus metabolite ratios were calculated, which gave an indication of mitochondrial activity: first, the ATP to PCr ratio, which gives a measure of cellular energy status; second, the ATP to inorganic phosphate (Pi) ratio, which measures oxidative phosphorylation; and third, the ratio of phosphomonoesters (PME) to phosphodiesters (PDE), which gives a measure of cell membrane turnover.

“We have measured the ratio of high-energy phosphate levels which are an indirect representation of the balance between energy generation, reserve and usage in the brain,” Mr. Sloan said.

The subjects studied were of a similar age, around 63 years on average, and well matched in terms of their sex and body mass index. Those with diabetes of course had higher blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin than did the healthy volunteers during the scans. Among those with diabetes, those with DPN were significantly more likely to have a longer duration of diabetes (12.5 years for painful DPN and 15.8 years for nonpainful DPN) than were those with no DPN (8.7 years).

Furthermore, those with DPN had higher scores on the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) than did those without, although there was not much difference between those with painful or nonpainful DPN. On the other had, those with painful DPN were more likely to have higher scores when using the Doleur Neuroathique en 4 (DN4) to assess their pain level.

Results showed significant changes in cerebral cellular bioenergetics in the pain processing regions of the brain in those with painful DPN. The ATP:PCr at the thalamus and at the somatosensory cortex was significantly higher in those with painful DPN, compared with healthy volunteers. The other measures of phosphorus metabolite levels (ATP:Pi and PME:PDE) were unaltered.

“We hypothesize that the findings of the study are suggestive of increased energy demands in regions of pain perception due to increased neuronal activity” said Dr. Sloan.

The study’s results add further evidence for cerebral alterations playing a key role in the generation and maintenance of pain in painful DPN.

SOURCE: Sloan S et al. EASD 2020, oral presentation 181.




 

Abnormal mitochondrial activity in pain-processing areas of the brain may explain why some persons with type 2 diabetes experience painful peripheral neuropathy while others do not, new U.K. study findings have suggested.

A greater ratio of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) – “the cellular energy currency of all life” – to phosphocreatine (PCr) was observed in the somatosensory cortex and right thalamus in those with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Importantly, this correlated with neuropathic pain symptom intensity as measured by the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) and the Doleur Neuroathique en 4 (DN4).

The findings suggest that altered cerebral phosphorus metabolite ratios may serve as a biomarker of DPN, said the study’s investigators.

“Normally the ATP:Cr ratio will be unaltered, but there’s stress to the brain that might change,” Gordon Sloan, a clinical research fellow within the Diabetes Research Unit at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (England) said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

DPN affects around a quarter of patients with type 2 diabetes but treatments are “inadequate”, and “unfortunately fewer than a third of individuals receive 50% or greater pain relief from current neuropathic pain treatments,” Mr. Sloan said. “Ultimately, this lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of the condition is therefore clear rationale to investigate the disease mechanisms further and to find novel targets for treatments,” he added.


 

Brain metabolites offer clues to neuropathic pain levels

The thalamus and primary somatosensory cortex are two key areas of the brain that are involved in the perception of painful stimuli, Mr. Sloan explained. “The thalamus receives most of the slowest sensory impulses from the peripheral nervous system modulating and processing them for relaying the signals to the rest of the pain matrix, including the somatosensory cortex where these sensations are interpreted and localized.”

Prior imaging work by Mr. Sloan’s group and others have shown that there are alterations in the functioning of both these brain areas in those with painful DPN versus healthy volunteers and those with type 2 diabetes but no DPN. So for their current study, Mr. Sloan and associates from Sheffield University and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, used an advanced imaging method – phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) – to scan the thalamus and somatosensory cortex of 43 persons with type 2 diabetes and 12 healthy volunteers. Of those with diabetes, 11 had no DPN, 12 had DPN but were not currently in pain, and 20 had painful DPN.

From the scans, three phosphorus metabolite ratios were calculated, which gave an indication of mitochondrial activity: first, the ATP to PCr ratio, which gives a measure of cellular energy status; second, the ATP to inorganic phosphate (Pi) ratio, which measures oxidative phosphorylation; and third, the ratio of phosphomonoesters (PME) to phosphodiesters (PDE), which gives a measure of cell membrane turnover.

“We have measured the ratio of high-energy phosphate levels which are an indirect representation of the balance between energy generation, reserve and usage in the brain,” Mr. Sloan said.

The subjects studied were of a similar age, around 63 years on average, and well matched in terms of their sex and body mass index. Those with diabetes of course had higher blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin than did the healthy volunteers during the scans. Among those with diabetes, those with DPN were significantly more likely to have a longer duration of diabetes (12.5 years for painful DPN and 15.8 years for nonpainful DPN) than were those with no DPN (8.7 years).

Furthermore, those with DPN had higher scores on the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) than did those without, although there was not much difference between those with painful or nonpainful DPN. On the other had, those with painful DPN were more likely to have higher scores when using the Doleur Neuroathique en 4 (DN4) to assess their pain level.

Results showed significant changes in cerebral cellular bioenergetics in the pain processing regions of the brain in those with painful DPN. The ATP:PCr at the thalamus and at the somatosensory cortex was significantly higher in those with painful DPN, compared with healthy volunteers. The other measures of phosphorus metabolite levels (ATP:Pi and PME:PDE) were unaltered.

“We hypothesize that the findings of the study are suggestive of increased energy demands in regions of pain perception due to increased neuronal activity” said Dr. Sloan.

The study’s results add further evidence for cerebral alterations playing a key role in the generation and maintenance of pain in painful DPN.

SOURCE: Sloan S et al. EASD 2020, oral presentation 181.




 

A COVID-19 vaccine could be proven effective within the last months of 2020, with distribution of first doses possible before the end of the year, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md.

“Given the rate of infection that’s going on in this country, and the distribution of the clinical trial sites involving tens of thousands of volunteers, we project that we will have an answer as to whether or not we have a safe and effective vaccine by November or December,” Dr. Fauci said today in his virtual keynote address during the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

“It may come earlier -- this month, in October,” he added in his remarks. “That is unlikely – it is more likely that we’ll have an answer in November and December.”

If that timing does come to pass, Dr. Fauci said, it’s possible that distribution of doses could start at the end of the year, continuing throughout the beginning and middle of 2021.

Although there are no guarantees, Dr. Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” regarding the timeline.

He said that his optimism is based in part on animal studies and phase 1 data that demonstrate robust neutralizing antibody responses to a vaccine that are equivalent to, if not greater than, natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Rapid development gives reason for hope

Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, a critical care and infectious disease specialist at Naval Medical Center San Diego, said there is reason to be hopeful that a vaccine will be available by the end of the calendar year. He cautioned, however, that this timing is based on the assumption that one of the vaccines will be proven safe and effective very soon.

“We’re lucky to have multiple phase 3 trials using multiple vaccine technologies in different platforms,” Dr. Maves said in a panel discussion following Dr. Fauci’s remarks. “I think the odds are very high that one of them will be effective.”

“I’m hoping that multiple vaccines will be effective,” Dr. Maves added. “Then we’ll be in a good position of determining which is the best of several good options, as a society and as a world.”

COVID-19 vaccine development over the past year has been remarkably fast, especially given the previous record set by the mumps vaccine, which took about four years to go from initial steps to rollout, Dr. Maves noted.

Dr. Fauci said the federal government has taken a “strategic approach” to the COVID-19 vaccine that includes direct involvement in the research and development of six different vaccine candidates, five of which are now in phase 3 trials.

As part of that strategic approach, the study protocols are harmonized to have a common data and safety monitoring board, common primary and secondary endpoints, and an independent statistical group to determine correlates of protection, Dr. Fauci said.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine distribution

Who gets COVID-19 vaccine first will be a challenge for governmental organizations as well as bioethicists, who have proposed different strategies for fairly prioritizing different groups for access.

Reaching communities of color will be an important consideration for prioritization, according to Dr. Maves, given the disproportionate burden of disease on Black and Hispanic individuals, among other such populations.

COVID-19–related hospitalization rates have been substantially higher in communities of color, Dr. Fauci said in his keynote address. Age-adjusted hospitalization rates for Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations are 375 to 368 per 100,000, respectively, compared with just 82 per 100,000 for White non-Hispanics, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outreach to those communities should include building trust in those populations that they will benefit from a safe and effective vaccine, and making sure that the vaccine is available to those communities as quickly as possible, Dr. Maves said.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Maves provided no disclosures related to their presentations.

[email protected]

A COVID-19 vaccine could be proven effective within the last months of 2020, with distribution of first doses possible before the end of the year, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md.

“Given the rate of infection that’s going on in this country, and the distribution of the clinical trial sites involving tens of thousands of volunteers, we project that we will have an answer as to whether or not we have a safe and effective vaccine by November or December,” Dr. Fauci said today in his virtual keynote address during the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

“It may come earlier -- this month, in October,” he added in his remarks. “That is unlikely – it is more likely that we’ll have an answer in November and December.”

If that timing does come to pass, Dr. Fauci said, it’s possible that distribution of doses could start at the end of the year, continuing throughout the beginning and middle of 2021.

Although there are no guarantees, Dr. Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” regarding the timeline.

He said that his optimism is based in part on animal studies and phase 1 data that demonstrate robust neutralizing antibody responses to a vaccine that are equivalent to, if not greater than, natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Rapid development gives reason for hope

Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, a critical care and infectious disease specialist at Naval Medical Center San Diego, said there is reason to be hopeful that a vaccine will be available by the end of the calendar year. He cautioned, however, that this timing is based on the assumption that one of the vaccines will be proven safe and effective very soon.

“We’re lucky to have multiple phase 3 trials using multiple vaccine technologies in different platforms,” Dr. Maves said in a panel discussion following Dr. Fauci’s remarks. “I think the odds are very high that one of them will be effective.”

“I’m hoping that multiple vaccines will be effective,” Dr. Maves added. “Then we’ll be in a good position of determining which is the best of several good options, as a society and as a world.”

COVID-19 vaccine development over the past year has been remarkably fast, especially given the previous record set by the mumps vaccine, which took about four years to go from initial steps to rollout, Dr. Maves noted.

Dr. Fauci said the federal government has taken a “strategic approach” to the COVID-19 vaccine that includes direct involvement in the research and development of six different vaccine candidates, five of which are now in phase 3 trials.

As part of that strategic approach, the study protocols are harmonized to have a common data and safety monitoring board, common primary and secondary endpoints, and an independent statistical group to determine correlates of protection, Dr. Fauci said.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine distribution

Who gets COVID-19 vaccine first will be a challenge for governmental organizations as well as bioethicists, who have proposed different strategies for fairly prioritizing different groups for access.

Reaching communities of color will be an important consideration for prioritization, according to Dr. Maves, given the disproportionate burden of disease on Black and Hispanic individuals, among other such populations.

COVID-19–related hospitalization rates have been substantially higher in communities of color, Dr. Fauci said in his keynote address. Age-adjusted hospitalization rates for Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations are 375 to 368 per 100,000, respectively, compared with just 82 per 100,000 for White non-Hispanics, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outreach to those communities should include building trust in those populations that they will benefit from a safe and effective vaccine, and making sure that the vaccine is available to those communities as quickly as possible, Dr. Maves said.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Maves provided no disclosures related to their presentations.

[email protected]

A COVID-19 vaccine could be proven effective within the last months of 2020, with distribution of first doses possible before the end of the year, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md.

“Given the rate of infection that’s going on in this country, and the distribution of the clinical trial sites involving tens of thousands of volunteers, we project that we will have an answer as to whether or not we have a safe and effective vaccine by November or December,” Dr. Fauci said today in his virtual keynote address during the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

“It may come earlier -- this month, in October,” he added in his remarks. “That is unlikely – it is more likely that we’ll have an answer in November and December.”

If that timing does come to pass, Dr. Fauci said, it’s possible that distribution of doses could start at the end of the year, continuing throughout the beginning and middle of 2021.

Although there are no guarantees, Dr. Fauci said he is “cautiously optimistic” regarding the timeline.

He said that his optimism is based in part on animal studies and phase 1 data that demonstrate robust neutralizing antibody responses to a vaccine that are equivalent to, if not greater than, natural infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Rapid development gives reason for hope

Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, a critical care and infectious disease specialist at Naval Medical Center San Diego, said there is reason to be hopeful that a vaccine will be available by the end of the calendar year. He cautioned, however, that this timing is based on the assumption that one of the vaccines will be proven safe and effective very soon.

“We’re lucky to have multiple phase 3 trials using multiple vaccine technologies in different platforms,” Dr. Maves said in a panel discussion following Dr. Fauci’s remarks. “I think the odds are very high that one of them will be effective.”

“I’m hoping that multiple vaccines will be effective,” Dr. Maves added. “Then we’ll be in a good position of determining which is the best of several good options, as a society and as a world.”

COVID-19 vaccine development over the past year has been remarkably fast, especially given the previous record set by the mumps vaccine, which took about four years to go from initial steps to rollout, Dr. Maves noted.

Dr. Fauci said the federal government has taken a “strategic approach” to the COVID-19 vaccine that includes direct involvement in the research and development of six different vaccine candidates, five of which are now in phase 3 trials.

As part of that strategic approach, the study protocols are harmonized to have a common data and safety monitoring board, common primary and secondary endpoints, and an independent statistical group to determine correlates of protection, Dr. Fauci said.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine distribution

Who gets COVID-19 vaccine first will be a challenge for governmental organizations as well as bioethicists, who have proposed different strategies for fairly prioritizing different groups for access.

Reaching communities of color will be an important consideration for prioritization, according to Dr. Maves, given the disproportionate burden of disease on Black and Hispanic individuals, among other such populations.

COVID-19–related hospitalization rates have been substantially higher in communities of color, Dr. Fauci said in his keynote address. Age-adjusted hospitalization rates for Hispanic/Latinx and Black populations are 375 to 368 per 100,000, respectively, compared with just 82 per 100,000 for White non-Hispanics, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Outreach to those communities should include building trust in those populations that they will benefit from a safe and effective vaccine, and making sure that the vaccine is available to those communities as quickly as possible, Dr. Maves said.

Dr. Fauci and Dr. Maves provided no disclosures related to their presentations.

[email protected]