Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), increased abundance of Blautia stercoris and its variants in the gut is associated with an increased risk of relapse. No broad differences in gut bacterial composition, however, are associated with risk of relapse, according to the investigators. The findings were presented at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Previous research has found an association between Blautia stercoris and disease activity in other immune-mediated diseases such as systemic lupus. Although the current study is the largest in patients with MS that includes data about the microbiome and relapses, its findings require replication, said Mary Horton, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gut microbes digest food, produce vitamins (for example, B12 and K), create a barrier against pathogens, and regulate the immune system, among other tasks. Most current knowledge about the gut microbiome in MS comes from studies of patients with adult-onset MS. In 2016, Tremlett et al. found an increase in Desulfovibrionaceae and a decrease in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in patients with pediatric-onset MS. They also found that a decrease in Fusobacteria was associated with risk of relapse in this population.
 

Advanced analytical methods

Using a larger sample size and newer analytical methods than in the study by Tremlett and colleagues, Ms. Horton’s group sought to determine whether features of the gut microbiome are associated with relapse. From 2014 to 2018, the investigators recruited 53 patients with pediatric-onset MS from the University of California, San Francisco, and six centers in the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers. At baseline, they collected stool samples, blood samples, information about past relapses, medication records, demographics, and environmental factors. At each relapse, the investigators collected information about the patient’s current and past medication use and about relapses that the patient had had since the previous visit.

Ms. Horton and colleagues analyzed the stool samples using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V4 region. They identified amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), which are used to define species of bacteria, with the Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm-2 (DADA2). Taxonomies were assigned using the naive Bayesian classifier method, and the read count was normalized using multiple rarefaction.

The investigators identified ASV clusters using weighted genetic correlation network analysis (WGCNA). To evaluate whether individual ASVs were associated with relapse, they used a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) recurrent event model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model.
 

The role of methanogenesis

Ms. Horton and colleagues included 53 patients (72% girls) in their study. The population’s mean age was 14.3 years at disease onset and 15.5 years at stool sample collection. About 70% of patients were White, and about 36% were Hispanic. Mean disease duration was 1.3 years, and median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 1.0.

Approximately 45% of participants had one relapse, and 30% had more than one relapse during the subsequent mean follow-up of 2.5 years. About 91% of patients used a disease-modifying therapy during follow-up.

Gut bacterial abundance was broadly similar between patients who relapsed during the study period and those who did not. Of 270 ASVs included in the analyses, 20 were nominally associated with risk of relapse. Blautia stercoris had the most significant association with relapse risk (hazard ratio, 2.50). Blautia massiliensis also was among the 20 ASVs associated with risk of relapse.

WGCNA identified six ASV clusters. Higher values of one cluster’s eigengene were significantly associated with higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23). The following four ASVs nominally associated with higher relapse risk were in this cluster: Blautia massiliensis, Dorea longicatena, Coprococcus comes, and an unknown species in genus Subdoligranulum.

When Ms. Horton and colleagues examined the pathways from these bacterial species, they found 10 that were significantly associated with the risk of relapse. Four of these 10 pathways are involved in methane production, which suggests the involvement of methanogenesis pathways in relapse.

Although the investigators used advanced techniques for genetic and statistical analysis, the study’s sample size is small, Ms. Horton acknowledged. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from observational data are limited.

These suggest several avenues for future research. “There is a big question about how the different treatments that people are on when they are experiencing relapses might impact the microbiome,” said Ms. Horton. “Is the microbiome impacting your treatment response, or is it the reverse?” Investigators also could examine why the methane production pathway is overrepresented among people with MS who have relapses. “Which specific archaea might be leading to that increase in methane is a ripe future study question. Just what that means for health is really unknown.”

The National MS Society and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke provided funding for the study. Ms. Horton had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horton M et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract LB01.05.

In patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), increased abundance of Blautia stercoris and its variants in the gut is associated with an increased risk of relapse. No broad differences in gut bacterial composition, however, are associated with risk of relapse, according to the investigators. The findings were presented at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Previous research has found an association between Blautia stercoris and disease activity in other immune-mediated diseases such as systemic lupus. Although the current study is the largest in patients with MS that includes data about the microbiome and relapses, its findings require replication, said Mary Horton, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gut microbes digest food, produce vitamins (for example, B12 and K), create a barrier against pathogens, and regulate the immune system, among other tasks. Most current knowledge about the gut microbiome in MS comes from studies of patients with adult-onset MS. In 2016, Tremlett et al. found an increase in Desulfovibrionaceae and a decrease in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in patients with pediatric-onset MS. They also found that a decrease in Fusobacteria was associated with risk of relapse in this population.
 

Advanced analytical methods

Using a larger sample size and newer analytical methods than in the study by Tremlett and colleagues, Ms. Horton’s group sought to determine whether features of the gut microbiome are associated with relapse. From 2014 to 2018, the investigators recruited 53 patients with pediatric-onset MS from the University of California, San Francisco, and six centers in the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers. At baseline, they collected stool samples, blood samples, information about past relapses, medication records, demographics, and environmental factors. At each relapse, the investigators collected information about the patient’s current and past medication use and about relapses that the patient had had since the previous visit.

Ms. Horton and colleagues analyzed the stool samples using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V4 region. They identified amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), which are used to define species of bacteria, with the Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm-2 (DADA2). Taxonomies were assigned using the naive Bayesian classifier method, and the read count was normalized using multiple rarefaction.

The investigators identified ASV clusters using weighted genetic correlation network analysis (WGCNA). To evaluate whether individual ASVs were associated with relapse, they used a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) recurrent event model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model.
 

The role of methanogenesis

Ms. Horton and colleagues included 53 patients (72% girls) in their study. The population’s mean age was 14.3 years at disease onset and 15.5 years at stool sample collection. About 70% of patients were White, and about 36% were Hispanic. Mean disease duration was 1.3 years, and median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 1.0.

Approximately 45% of participants had one relapse, and 30% had more than one relapse during the subsequent mean follow-up of 2.5 years. About 91% of patients used a disease-modifying therapy during follow-up.

Gut bacterial abundance was broadly similar between patients who relapsed during the study period and those who did not. Of 270 ASVs included in the analyses, 20 were nominally associated with risk of relapse. Blautia stercoris had the most significant association with relapse risk (hazard ratio, 2.50). Blautia massiliensis also was among the 20 ASVs associated with risk of relapse.

WGCNA identified six ASV clusters. Higher values of one cluster’s eigengene were significantly associated with higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23). The following four ASVs nominally associated with higher relapse risk were in this cluster: Blautia massiliensis, Dorea longicatena, Coprococcus comes, and an unknown species in genus Subdoligranulum.

When Ms. Horton and colleagues examined the pathways from these bacterial species, they found 10 that were significantly associated with the risk of relapse. Four of these 10 pathways are involved in methane production, which suggests the involvement of methanogenesis pathways in relapse.

Although the investigators used advanced techniques for genetic and statistical analysis, the study’s sample size is small, Ms. Horton acknowledged. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from observational data are limited.

These suggest several avenues for future research. “There is a big question about how the different treatments that people are on when they are experiencing relapses might impact the microbiome,” said Ms. Horton. “Is the microbiome impacting your treatment response, or is it the reverse?” Investigators also could examine why the methane production pathway is overrepresented among people with MS who have relapses. “Which specific archaea might be leading to that increase in methane is a ripe future study question. Just what that means for health is really unknown.”

The National MS Society and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke provided funding for the study. Ms. Horton had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horton M et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract LB01.05.

In patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), increased abundance of Blautia stercoris and its variants in the gut is associated with an increased risk of relapse. No broad differences in gut bacterial composition, however, are associated with risk of relapse, according to the investigators. The findings were presented at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Previous research has found an association between Blautia stercoris and disease activity in other immune-mediated diseases such as systemic lupus. Although the current study is the largest in patients with MS that includes data about the microbiome and relapses, its findings require replication, said Mary Horton, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gut microbes digest food, produce vitamins (for example, B12 and K), create a barrier against pathogens, and regulate the immune system, among other tasks. Most current knowledge about the gut microbiome in MS comes from studies of patients with adult-onset MS. In 2016, Tremlett et al. found an increase in Desulfovibrionaceae and a decrease in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in patients with pediatric-onset MS. They also found that a decrease in Fusobacteria was associated with risk of relapse in this population.
 

Advanced analytical methods

Using a larger sample size and newer analytical methods than in the study by Tremlett and colleagues, Ms. Horton’s group sought to determine whether features of the gut microbiome are associated with relapse. From 2014 to 2018, the investigators recruited 53 patients with pediatric-onset MS from the University of California, San Francisco, and six centers in the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers. At baseline, they collected stool samples, blood samples, information about past relapses, medication records, demographics, and environmental factors. At each relapse, the investigators collected information about the patient’s current and past medication use and about relapses that the patient had had since the previous visit.

Ms. Horton and colleagues analyzed the stool samples using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V4 region. They identified amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), which are used to define species of bacteria, with the Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm-2 (DADA2). Taxonomies were assigned using the naive Bayesian classifier method, and the read count was normalized using multiple rarefaction.

The investigators identified ASV clusters using weighted genetic correlation network analysis (WGCNA). To evaluate whether individual ASVs were associated with relapse, they used a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) recurrent event model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model.
 

The role of methanogenesis

Ms. Horton and colleagues included 53 patients (72% girls) in their study. The population’s mean age was 14.3 years at disease onset and 15.5 years at stool sample collection. About 70% of patients were White, and about 36% were Hispanic. Mean disease duration was 1.3 years, and median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 1.0.

Approximately 45% of participants had one relapse, and 30% had more than one relapse during the subsequent mean follow-up of 2.5 years. About 91% of patients used a disease-modifying therapy during follow-up.

Gut bacterial abundance was broadly similar between patients who relapsed during the study period and those who did not. Of 270 ASVs included in the analyses, 20 were nominally associated with risk of relapse. Blautia stercoris had the most significant association with relapse risk (hazard ratio, 2.50). Blautia massiliensis also was among the 20 ASVs associated with risk of relapse.

WGCNA identified six ASV clusters. Higher values of one cluster’s eigengene were significantly associated with higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23). The following four ASVs nominally associated with higher relapse risk were in this cluster: Blautia massiliensis, Dorea longicatena, Coprococcus comes, and an unknown species in genus Subdoligranulum.

When Ms. Horton and colleagues examined the pathways from these bacterial species, they found 10 that were significantly associated with the risk of relapse. Four of these 10 pathways are involved in methane production, which suggests the involvement of methanogenesis pathways in relapse.

Although the investigators used advanced techniques for genetic and statistical analysis, the study’s sample size is small, Ms. Horton acknowledged. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from observational data are limited.

These suggest several avenues for future research. “There is a big question about how the different treatments that people are on when they are experiencing relapses might impact the microbiome,” said Ms. Horton. “Is the microbiome impacting your treatment response, or is it the reverse?” Investigators also could examine why the methane production pathway is overrepresented among people with MS who have relapses. “Which specific archaea might be leading to that increase in methane is a ripe future study question. Just what that means for health is really unknown.”

The National MS Society and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke provided funding for the study. Ms. Horton had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horton M et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract LB01.05.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiotherapy planning scans may be a rich untapped source of information for estimating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in breast cancer patients, a large study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Ivar Pel

Researchers found that breast cancer patients with a coronary artery calcifications (CAC) score exceeding 400 had nearly four times the adjusted risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD events when compared with patients who had a CAC score of 0.

Patients with scores exceeding 400 also had more than eight times the risk of coronary heart disease events. The associations were especially strong in the subset of patients who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

Helena Verkooijen, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) presented these findings at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Dr. Verkooijen noted that, over the past 50 years, breast cancer has dramatically declined as a cause of death among breast cancer survivors, while CVD has continued to account for about 20% of the total deaths in this population.

CACs are sometimes incidentally seen in radiotherapy planning CT scans. “Right now, this information is not often used for patient stratification or informing patients about their cardiovascular risk, and this is a pity, because we know that it is an independent risk factor, and, often, the presence of calcifications can occur in the absence of other cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Verkooijen said.
 

Study details

Dr. Verkooijen and and colleagues from the Bragataston Study Group retrospectively studied 15,919 breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy planning CT scans during 2004-2016 at three Dutch institutions.

The researchers used an automated deep-learning algorithm (described in Radiology) to detect and quantify coronary calcium in planning CT scans and calculate CAC scores, classifying them into five categories.

The median follow-up was 51.6 months. Most women (70%) did not have any calcium detected in their coronary arteries (CAC score of 0), while 3% fell into the highest category (CAC score of >400).

The incidence of nonfatal and fatal CVD events increased with CAC score:

• 5.1% with a score of 0.
• 8.5% with a score of 1-10.
• 13.5% with a score of 11-100.
• 17.6% with a score of 101-400.
• 28.0% with a score greater than 400.

In analyses adjusted for age, laterality of radiation, and receipt of cardiotoxic agents – anthracyclines and trastuzumab – women with a score exceeding 400 had sharply elevated adjusted risks of CVD events (hazard ratio, 3.7), of coronary heart disease events specifically (HR, 8.2), and of death from any cause (HR, 2.8), when compared with peers who had a CAC score of 0.

On further scrutiny of CVD events, the pattern was similar regardless of whether radiation was left- or right-sided. However, the association was stronger among women who received anthracyclines as compared with counterparts who did not, with a nearly six-fold higher risk for those with highest versus lowest CAC scores.

When the women were surveyed, nearly 90% said they wanted to be informed about their CAC score and associated CVD risk, even in the absence of evidence-based risk reduction strategies.
 

Applying the results

“We believe that this is the first time that anyone has conducted a study on this topic on a scale like this, and we show that it is possible to relatively easily identify women at a very high risk of CVD,” Dr. Verkooijen said. “But what do we do with this information, because these scans are not made to answer this question. … This is information that we get that we haven’t really requested. I think we should only use this information when we have really shown that we can help patients reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

To that end, Dr. Verkooijen and colleagues are planning additional research that will look at the potential benefit of referring high-risk patients for cardioprevention strategies and at the role of using the CAC score to personalize treatment strategies.

“This is an interesting and novel approach to predicting cardiac events for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment,” Meena S. Moran, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., commented in an interview.

The approach would likely be feasible in typical practice with widespread availability of the automated algorithm and might even alter treatment planning in real time, she said. “From the standpoint of radiation oncology, it would mean running the software to generate a CAC score, which would allow for modifications in decision-making during treatment planning, such as whether or not to include the internal mammary nodal chain in a patient who may be in the ‘gray zone’ for regional nodal radiation. For example, if a patient has a high CAC score, plus if they have received (or are receiving) cardiotoxic drugs, radiation oncologists can use that information as an additional factor to consider in the decision-making of whether or not to include the internal mammary chain, which inevitably can increase the dose delivered to the heart,” Dr. Moran elaborated.

Dr. Verkooijen’s study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Commission, the Dutch Digestive Foundation, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and Elekta. Dr. Verkooijen and Dr. Moran disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gal R et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress, Abstract 7.

Radiotherapy planning scans may be a rich untapped source of information for estimating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in breast cancer patients, a large study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Ivar Pel

Researchers found that breast cancer patients with a coronary artery calcifications (CAC) score exceeding 400 had nearly four times the adjusted risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD events when compared with patients who had a CAC score of 0.

Patients with scores exceeding 400 also had more than eight times the risk of coronary heart disease events. The associations were especially strong in the subset of patients who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

Helena Verkooijen, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) presented these findings at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Dr. Verkooijen noted that, over the past 50 years, breast cancer has dramatically declined as a cause of death among breast cancer survivors, while CVD has continued to account for about 20% of the total deaths in this population.

CACs are sometimes incidentally seen in radiotherapy planning CT scans. “Right now, this information is not often used for patient stratification or informing patients about their cardiovascular risk, and this is a pity, because we know that it is an independent risk factor, and, often, the presence of calcifications can occur in the absence of other cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Verkooijen said.
 

Study details

Dr. Verkooijen and and colleagues from the Bragataston Study Group retrospectively studied 15,919 breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy planning CT scans during 2004-2016 at three Dutch institutions.

The researchers used an automated deep-learning algorithm (described in Radiology) to detect and quantify coronary calcium in planning CT scans and calculate CAC scores, classifying them into five categories.

The median follow-up was 51.6 months. Most women (70%) did not have any calcium detected in their coronary arteries (CAC score of 0), while 3% fell into the highest category (CAC score of >400).

The incidence of nonfatal and fatal CVD events increased with CAC score:

• 5.1% with a score of 0.
• 8.5% with a score of 1-10.
• 13.5% with a score of 11-100.
• 17.6% with a score of 101-400.
• 28.0% with a score greater than 400.

In analyses adjusted for age, laterality of radiation, and receipt of cardiotoxic agents – anthracyclines and trastuzumab – women with a score exceeding 400 had sharply elevated adjusted risks of CVD events (hazard ratio, 3.7), of coronary heart disease events specifically (HR, 8.2), and of death from any cause (HR, 2.8), when compared with peers who had a CAC score of 0.

On further scrutiny of CVD events, the pattern was similar regardless of whether radiation was left- or right-sided. However, the association was stronger among women who received anthracyclines as compared with counterparts who did not, with a nearly six-fold higher risk for those with highest versus lowest CAC scores.

When the women were surveyed, nearly 90% said they wanted to be informed about their CAC score and associated CVD risk, even in the absence of evidence-based risk reduction strategies.
 

Applying the results

“We believe that this is the first time that anyone has conducted a study on this topic on a scale like this, and we show that it is possible to relatively easily identify women at a very high risk of CVD,” Dr. Verkooijen said. “But what do we do with this information, because these scans are not made to answer this question. … This is information that we get that we haven’t really requested. I think we should only use this information when we have really shown that we can help patients reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

To that end, Dr. Verkooijen and colleagues are planning additional research that will look at the potential benefit of referring high-risk patients for cardioprevention strategies and at the role of using the CAC score to personalize treatment strategies.

“This is an interesting and novel approach to predicting cardiac events for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment,” Meena S. Moran, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., commented in an interview.

The approach would likely be feasible in typical practice with widespread availability of the automated algorithm and might even alter treatment planning in real time, she said. “From the standpoint of radiation oncology, it would mean running the software to generate a CAC score, which would allow for modifications in decision-making during treatment planning, such as whether or not to include the internal mammary nodal chain in a patient who may be in the ‘gray zone’ for regional nodal radiation. For example, if a patient has a high CAC score, plus if they have received (or are receiving) cardiotoxic drugs, radiation oncologists can use that information as an additional factor to consider in the decision-making of whether or not to include the internal mammary chain, which inevitably can increase the dose delivered to the heart,” Dr. Moran elaborated.

Dr. Verkooijen’s study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Commission, the Dutch Digestive Foundation, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and Elekta. Dr. Verkooijen and Dr. Moran disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gal R et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress, Abstract 7.

Radiotherapy planning scans may be a rich untapped source of information for estimating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in breast cancer patients, a large study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Ivar Pel

Researchers found that breast cancer patients with a coronary artery calcifications (CAC) score exceeding 400 had nearly four times the adjusted risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD events when compared with patients who had a CAC score of 0.

Patients with scores exceeding 400 also had more than eight times the risk of coronary heart disease events. The associations were especially strong in the subset of patients who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

Helena Verkooijen, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) presented these findings at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Dr. Verkooijen noted that, over the past 50 years, breast cancer has dramatically declined as a cause of death among breast cancer survivors, while CVD has continued to account for about 20% of the total deaths in this population.

CACs are sometimes incidentally seen in radiotherapy planning CT scans. “Right now, this information is not often used for patient stratification or informing patients about their cardiovascular risk, and this is a pity, because we know that it is an independent risk factor, and, often, the presence of calcifications can occur in the absence of other cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Verkooijen said.
 

Study details

Dr. Verkooijen and and colleagues from the Bragataston Study Group retrospectively studied 15,919 breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy planning CT scans during 2004-2016 at three Dutch institutions.

The researchers used an automated deep-learning algorithm (described in Radiology) to detect and quantify coronary calcium in planning CT scans and calculate CAC scores, classifying them into five categories.

The median follow-up was 51.6 months. Most women (70%) did not have any calcium detected in their coronary arteries (CAC score of 0), while 3% fell into the highest category (CAC score of >400).

The incidence of nonfatal and fatal CVD events increased with CAC score:

• 5.1% with a score of 0.
• 8.5% with a score of 1-10.
• 13.5% with a score of 11-100.
• 17.6% with a score of 101-400.
• 28.0% with a score greater than 400.

In analyses adjusted for age, laterality of radiation, and receipt of cardiotoxic agents – anthracyclines and trastuzumab – women with a score exceeding 400 had sharply elevated adjusted risks of CVD events (hazard ratio, 3.7), of coronary heart disease events specifically (HR, 8.2), and of death from any cause (HR, 2.8), when compared with peers who had a CAC score of 0.

On further scrutiny of CVD events, the pattern was similar regardless of whether radiation was left- or right-sided. However, the association was stronger among women who received anthracyclines as compared with counterparts who did not, with a nearly six-fold higher risk for those with highest versus lowest CAC scores.

When the women were surveyed, nearly 90% said they wanted to be informed about their CAC score and associated CVD risk, even in the absence of evidence-based risk reduction strategies.
 

Applying the results

“We believe that this is the first time that anyone has conducted a study on this topic on a scale like this, and we show that it is possible to relatively easily identify women at a very high risk of CVD,” Dr. Verkooijen said. “But what do we do with this information, because these scans are not made to answer this question. … This is information that we get that we haven’t really requested. I think we should only use this information when we have really shown that we can help patients reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

To that end, Dr. Verkooijen and colleagues are planning additional research that will look at the potential benefit of referring high-risk patients for cardioprevention strategies and at the role of using the CAC score to personalize treatment strategies.

“This is an interesting and novel approach to predicting cardiac events for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment,” Meena S. Moran, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., commented in an interview.

The approach would likely be feasible in typical practice with widespread availability of the automated algorithm and might even alter treatment planning in real time, she said. “From the standpoint of radiation oncology, it would mean running the software to generate a CAC score, which would allow for modifications in decision-making during treatment planning, such as whether or not to include the internal mammary nodal chain in a patient who may be in the ‘gray zone’ for regional nodal radiation. For example, if a patient has a high CAC score, plus if they have received (or are receiving) cardiotoxic drugs, radiation oncologists can use that information as an additional factor to consider in the decision-making of whether or not to include the internal mammary chain, which inevitably can increase the dose delivered to the heart,” Dr. Moran elaborated.

Dr. Verkooijen’s study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Commission, the Dutch Digestive Foundation, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and Elekta. Dr. Verkooijen and Dr. Moran disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gal R et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress, Abstract 7.

The risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) seems to align with that seen in the general population, new U.S. data suggest. A separate study from the United Kingdom also found similar trends of rates of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS and the general population.

Both studies were presented Sept. 26 at a special session on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 at a final “Encore” event as part of the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

The U.S. data appear consistent with studies from several other countries, in that worse COVID-19 outcomes increase with age and higher disability levels, both of which would be expected from findings in the general population.

The U.S. data also show a clear effect of race in MS, with higher rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Black patients, again in line with what is seen in the general population.

“I would say the results from our study and in general do not suggest that MS itself is associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes, compared with the general population,” said Amber Salter, PhD.

Dr. Salter, who is assistant professor of biostatistics at Washington University, St. Louis, presented data from the COViMS North American registry, set up for health care providers to report persons with MS who are infected with COVID-19.

The COViMS registry so far has information on 858 patients with MS who have COVID-19 (80% verified by a positive test), as reported from 150 different health care providers in the United States and Canada. The average age was 48 years, with average disease duration of 13.6 years. MS clinical course was reported as relapsing remitting in 78%, secondary progressive in 15%, and primary progressive in 5%. Most patients (72%) were fully ambulatory, 16% could walk with assistance, and 12% were nonambulatory.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes were classified as mortality (which occurred in 5.7% of the cohort), mortality/ICU admission (13.6%) and mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (30.2%).

Results were adjusted for many different covariates, including sex, age, smoking, MS clinical course (relapsing, progressive), disease duration, ambulation, individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), and disease-modifying therapy use.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age, having chronic renal disease, and being nonambulatory were consistently associated with increased odds of poorer outcomes. Chronic kidney disease had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 28.6; P < .001). Other factors associated with mortality included cardiovascular disease (OR, 4.35; P = .009); age (OR per 10 years, 1.91; P = .012), and male sex (OR, 2.60; P = .041).

Patients who were nonambulatory had a higher risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (OR, 3.32; P = .003). This endpoint was also increased in patients on anti-CD20 drugs, compared with other disease-modifying treatment (OR, 2.31; P = .002), consistent with results from at least two other studies.

Disease-modifying therapy in general was not associated with an increased risk of worse outcomes. “There was some concern at the outset about the effect of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 outcomes, but most studies have not found an increased risk of worse outcomes in patients on such drug treatments, with the possible exception of anti-CD20 drugs,” Dr. Salter said.

“Some disease-modifying therapies may actually be protective (particularly interferon) and studies are investigating whether they may have a role in the treatment of COVID-19,” she added.

“The factors in MS patients that we and others have found to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes may not be specific to MS. Older age is known to be a primary risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in the general population, and increasing disability presumably tracks with worse general heath,” Dr. Salter commented.

“I would say the overall data are fairly reassuring for MS patents,” she concluded.
 

Black patients have higher risk

One worrying finding in the North American data, however, was the effect of race. “We found an independent effect of race for worse COVID-19 outcomes in MS patients,” Dr. Slater said.

Of the 858 patients in the COViMS registry, 65.7% were White and 26.1% were Black. Black individuals were more likely to be younger, never smokers, have shorter MS duration, a relapsing MS course, and have comorbidities, compared with White patients. A higher proportion of Black patients had hypertension (40.2% vs 19.5%) and morbid obesity (17% vs. 9.5%).

Results showed that mortality rates were not statistically different between White and Black patients, but Black race was associated with increased risk of mortality and/or ICU admission, compared with White patients (16.9% vs. 12.8%), and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed Black race was independently associated with mortality/ICU admission after adjustments for covariates (OR, 3.7; P = .002).

Black race was also associated with increased risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospital admission (35.8% vs. 30.2%), and after adjustment for covariates this was found to be an independent predictor (OR, 1.7; P = .04).

“This higher COVID-19 risk in Black individuals is also seen in the general population, so these results are not that surprising and it doesn’t appear to be an effect specific to MS patients,” Dr. Salter commented.
 

U.K. data on risk of contracting COVID-19 

A U.K. study also suggested race to be an independent predictor in the risk of contracting COVID-19 in patients with MS.

The study of more than 5,000 patients with MS showed that those from a Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group were twice as likely to report having COVID-19 than those who were White.

The study, which was conducted during the U.K. lockdown, also found that the trend of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS is comparable with that of the U.K. general population.

Presenting the data, Afagh Garjani, MD, concluded: “During a period with strict physical distancing measures, patients with MS are not at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.”

Dr. Garjani, a neurology clinical research fellow at the University of Nottingham, (England), explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced uncertainties into the MS community, and the focus so far has been the severity of infection among people with MS who have COVID-19.

“This approach has left questions about the risk of contracting disease in people with MS unanswered, which has implications as society gradually returns to normal,” she said.

Dr. Garjani presented data from the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR), which has been collecting demographic and MS-related data since 2011 from patients with MS throughout the United Kingdom.

On March 17 – just before the lockdown in United Kingdom – existing participants of the UKMSR were asked to join the COVID-19 study. The study was also advertised through social media. In this ongoing study, people with MS answered a COVID-19–related survey at participation and a different follow-up survey every 2 weeks depending on whether they contracted COVID-19.

The COVID-19 study included 5,309 patients with MS. The mean age of the study population was 52.4 years, 76.1% were female, and 95.7% were White. Of the 5,309 patients, 535 (10%) reported a self-diagnosis of COVID-19. Because of limited availability of tests in the United Kingdom at the time, only 75 patents had a positive polymerase chain reaction result.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest community-based study of COVID-19 in patients with MS worldwide,” Dr. Garjani said. She presented results from the period March 23 to June 24, when the United Kingdom was in a period of lockdown with vulnerable groups encouraged to self-isolate completely.

In this MS cohort, 47% reported self-isolating at some point. Those at older age and higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were more likely to have self-isolated.

The researchers did not find that patients with progressive MS or those on disease-modifying therapies in general isolated more, but patients on monoclonal antibody drugs and fingolimod were more likely to self-isolate versus those on other therapies. “This may be because there are concerns about infection with these drugs and patients on these therapies may be more concerned about contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Garjani suggested.

In terms of contracting COVID, the researchers found a reduced risk of COVID-19 (self-diagnosed) in patients with older age and higher EDSS. “This is not really surprising that these patients were more likely to self-isolate,” Dr. Garjani commented.

No association was seen between type of MS, disease duration, disease-modifying therapy in general, and risk of COVID-19. No individual drug treatment increased risk versus no therapy or versus self-injectables. But there was an increased risk of contracting the virus in patients whose race was Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (OR, 2.2), which is in line with findings from the general population.

“This study is unique – the denominator is all people with MS. We are looking primarily at the risk of contracting COVID-19. Other studies are focusing more on people with MS who have COVID and assessing risk of a severe COVID outcome. Our results are not contradicting the findings from those studies,” Dr. Garjani said.

The results were similar only when patients with a confirmed COVID-19 test were considered.

In terms of outcomes in those who reported COVID-19 infection, preliminary results have not shown any MS factors – such as EDSS, age, type of MS, drug therapy in general – to be associated with outcome.

“Since the COVID-19 outbreak started there has been concern among MS patients, especially among those on disease-modifying therapies, about whether they are at increased risk of infection and severe disease,” Dr. Garjani said.

“We found similar trends of rates of infection in MS patients and the general population, and no signal of increased risks in those with higher EDSS or progressive MS. The caveat is that this study was conducted in a period of lockdown, but we adjusted for self-isolating behavior in the multivariable regression analysis,” she noted.

Dr. Salter is a statistical editor for the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. Dr. Garjani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) seems to align with that seen in the general population, new U.S. data suggest. A separate study from the United Kingdom also found similar trends of rates of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS and the general population.

Both studies were presented Sept. 26 at a special session on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 at a final “Encore” event as part of the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

The U.S. data appear consistent with studies from several other countries, in that worse COVID-19 outcomes increase with age and higher disability levels, both of which would be expected from findings in the general population.

The U.S. data also show a clear effect of race in MS, with higher rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Black patients, again in line with what is seen in the general population.

“I would say the results from our study and in general do not suggest that MS itself is associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes, compared with the general population,” said Amber Salter, PhD.

Dr. Salter, who is assistant professor of biostatistics at Washington University, St. Louis, presented data from the COViMS North American registry, set up for health care providers to report persons with MS who are infected with COVID-19.

The COViMS registry so far has information on 858 patients with MS who have COVID-19 (80% verified by a positive test), as reported from 150 different health care providers in the United States and Canada. The average age was 48 years, with average disease duration of 13.6 years. MS clinical course was reported as relapsing remitting in 78%, secondary progressive in 15%, and primary progressive in 5%. Most patients (72%) were fully ambulatory, 16% could walk with assistance, and 12% were nonambulatory.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes were classified as mortality (which occurred in 5.7% of the cohort), mortality/ICU admission (13.6%) and mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (30.2%).

Results were adjusted for many different covariates, including sex, age, smoking, MS clinical course (relapsing, progressive), disease duration, ambulation, individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), and disease-modifying therapy use.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age, having chronic renal disease, and being nonambulatory were consistently associated with increased odds of poorer outcomes. Chronic kidney disease had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 28.6; P < .001). Other factors associated with mortality included cardiovascular disease (OR, 4.35; P = .009); age (OR per 10 years, 1.91; P = .012), and male sex (OR, 2.60; P = .041).

Patients who were nonambulatory had a higher risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (OR, 3.32; P = .003). This endpoint was also increased in patients on anti-CD20 drugs, compared with other disease-modifying treatment (OR, 2.31; P = .002), consistent with results from at least two other studies.

Disease-modifying therapy in general was not associated with an increased risk of worse outcomes. “There was some concern at the outset about the effect of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 outcomes, but most studies have not found an increased risk of worse outcomes in patients on such drug treatments, with the possible exception of anti-CD20 drugs,” Dr. Salter said.

“Some disease-modifying therapies may actually be protective (particularly interferon) and studies are investigating whether they may have a role in the treatment of COVID-19,” she added.

“The factors in MS patients that we and others have found to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes may not be specific to MS. Older age is known to be a primary risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in the general population, and increasing disability presumably tracks with worse general heath,” Dr. Salter commented.

“I would say the overall data are fairly reassuring for MS patents,” she concluded.
 

Black patients have higher risk

One worrying finding in the North American data, however, was the effect of race. “We found an independent effect of race for worse COVID-19 outcomes in MS patients,” Dr. Slater said.

Of the 858 patients in the COViMS registry, 65.7% were White and 26.1% were Black. Black individuals were more likely to be younger, never smokers, have shorter MS duration, a relapsing MS course, and have comorbidities, compared with White patients. A higher proportion of Black patients had hypertension (40.2% vs 19.5%) and morbid obesity (17% vs. 9.5%).

Results showed that mortality rates were not statistically different between White and Black patients, but Black race was associated with increased risk of mortality and/or ICU admission, compared with White patients (16.9% vs. 12.8%), and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed Black race was independently associated with mortality/ICU admission after adjustments for covariates (OR, 3.7; P = .002).

Black race was also associated with increased risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospital admission (35.8% vs. 30.2%), and after adjustment for covariates this was found to be an independent predictor (OR, 1.7; P = .04).

“This higher COVID-19 risk in Black individuals is also seen in the general population, so these results are not that surprising and it doesn’t appear to be an effect specific to MS patients,” Dr. Salter commented.
 

U.K. data on risk of contracting COVID-19 

A U.K. study also suggested race to be an independent predictor in the risk of contracting COVID-19 in patients with MS.

The study of more than 5,000 patients with MS showed that those from a Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group were twice as likely to report having COVID-19 than those who were White.

The study, which was conducted during the U.K. lockdown, also found that the trend of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS is comparable with that of the U.K. general population.

Presenting the data, Afagh Garjani, MD, concluded: “During a period with strict physical distancing measures, patients with MS are not at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.”

Dr. Garjani, a neurology clinical research fellow at the University of Nottingham, (England), explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced uncertainties into the MS community, and the focus so far has been the severity of infection among people with MS who have COVID-19.

“This approach has left questions about the risk of contracting disease in people with MS unanswered, which has implications as society gradually returns to normal,” she said.

Dr. Garjani presented data from the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR), which has been collecting demographic and MS-related data since 2011 from patients with MS throughout the United Kingdom.

On March 17 – just before the lockdown in United Kingdom – existing participants of the UKMSR were asked to join the COVID-19 study. The study was also advertised through social media. In this ongoing study, people with MS answered a COVID-19–related survey at participation and a different follow-up survey every 2 weeks depending on whether they contracted COVID-19.

The COVID-19 study included 5,309 patients with MS. The mean age of the study population was 52.4 years, 76.1% were female, and 95.7% were White. Of the 5,309 patients, 535 (10%) reported a self-diagnosis of COVID-19. Because of limited availability of tests in the United Kingdom at the time, only 75 patents had a positive polymerase chain reaction result.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest community-based study of COVID-19 in patients with MS worldwide,” Dr. Garjani said. She presented results from the period March 23 to June 24, when the United Kingdom was in a period of lockdown with vulnerable groups encouraged to self-isolate completely.

In this MS cohort, 47% reported self-isolating at some point. Those at older age and higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were more likely to have self-isolated.

The researchers did not find that patients with progressive MS or those on disease-modifying therapies in general isolated more, but patients on monoclonal antibody drugs and fingolimod were more likely to self-isolate versus those on other therapies. “This may be because there are concerns about infection with these drugs and patients on these therapies may be more concerned about contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Garjani suggested.

In terms of contracting COVID, the researchers found a reduced risk of COVID-19 (self-diagnosed) in patients with older age and higher EDSS. “This is not really surprising that these patients were more likely to self-isolate,” Dr. Garjani commented.

No association was seen between type of MS, disease duration, disease-modifying therapy in general, and risk of COVID-19. No individual drug treatment increased risk versus no therapy or versus self-injectables. But there was an increased risk of contracting the virus in patients whose race was Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (OR, 2.2), which is in line with findings from the general population.

“This study is unique – the denominator is all people with MS. We are looking primarily at the risk of contracting COVID-19. Other studies are focusing more on people with MS who have COVID and assessing risk of a severe COVID outcome. Our results are not contradicting the findings from those studies,” Dr. Garjani said.

The results were similar only when patients with a confirmed COVID-19 test were considered.

In terms of outcomes in those who reported COVID-19 infection, preliminary results have not shown any MS factors – such as EDSS, age, type of MS, drug therapy in general – to be associated with outcome.

“Since the COVID-19 outbreak started there has been concern among MS patients, especially among those on disease-modifying therapies, about whether they are at increased risk of infection and severe disease,” Dr. Garjani said.

“We found similar trends of rates of infection in MS patients and the general population, and no signal of increased risks in those with higher EDSS or progressive MS. The caveat is that this study was conducted in a period of lockdown, but we adjusted for self-isolating behavior in the multivariable regression analysis,” she noted.

Dr. Salter is a statistical editor for the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. Dr. Garjani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) seems to align with that seen in the general population, new U.S. data suggest. A separate study from the United Kingdom also found similar trends of rates of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS and the general population.

Both studies were presented Sept. 26 at a special session on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 at a final “Encore” event as part of the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

The U.S. data appear consistent with studies from several other countries, in that worse COVID-19 outcomes increase with age and higher disability levels, both of which would be expected from findings in the general population.

The U.S. data also show a clear effect of race in MS, with higher rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Black patients, again in line with what is seen in the general population.

“I would say the results from our study and in general do not suggest that MS itself is associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes, compared with the general population,” said Amber Salter, PhD.

Dr. Salter, who is assistant professor of biostatistics at Washington University, St. Louis, presented data from the COViMS North American registry, set up for health care providers to report persons with MS who are infected with COVID-19.

The COViMS registry so far has information on 858 patients with MS who have COVID-19 (80% verified by a positive test), as reported from 150 different health care providers in the United States and Canada. The average age was 48 years, with average disease duration of 13.6 years. MS clinical course was reported as relapsing remitting in 78%, secondary progressive in 15%, and primary progressive in 5%. Most patients (72%) were fully ambulatory, 16% could walk with assistance, and 12% were nonambulatory.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes were classified as mortality (which occurred in 5.7% of the cohort), mortality/ICU admission (13.6%) and mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (30.2%).

Results were adjusted for many different covariates, including sex, age, smoking, MS clinical course (relapsing, progressive), disease duration, ambulation, individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), and disease-modifying therapy use.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age, having chronic renal disease, and being nonambulatory were consistently associated with increased odds of poorer outcomes. Chronic kidney disease had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 28.6; P < .001). Other factors associated with mortality included cardiovascular disease (OR, 4.35; P = .009); age (OR per 10 years, 1.91; P = .012), and male sex (OR, 2.60; P = .041).

Patients who were nonambulatory had a higher risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (OR, 3.32; P = .003). This endpoint was also increased in patients on anti-CD20 drugs, compared with other disease-modifying treatment (OR, 2.31; P = .002), consistent with results from at least two other studies.

Disease-modifying therapy in general was not associated with an increased risk of worse outcomes. “There was some concern at the outset about the effect of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 outcomes, but most studies have not found an increased risk of worse outcomes in patients on such drug treatments, with the possible exception of anti-CD20 drugs,” Dr. Salter said.

“Some disease-modifying therapies may actually be protective (particularly interferon) and studies are investigating whether they may have a role in the treatment of COVID-19,” she added.

“The factors in MS patients that we and others have found to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes may not be specific to MS. Older age is known to be a primary risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in the general population, and increasing disability presumably tracks with worse general heath,” Dr. Salter commented.

“I would say the overall data are fairly reassuring for MS patents,” she concluded.
 

Black patients have higher risk

One worrying finding in the North American data, however, was the effect of race. “We found an independent effect of race for worse COVID-19 outcomes in MS patients,” Dr. Slater said.

Of the 858 patients in the COViMS registry, 65.7% were White and 26.1% were Black. Black individuals were more likely to be younger, never smokers, have shorter MS duration, a relapsing MS course, and have comorbidities, compared with White patients. A higher proportion of Black patients had hypertension (40.2% vs 19.5%) and morbid obesity (17% vs. 9.5%).

Results showed that mortality rates were not statistically different between White and Black patients, but Black race was associated with increased risk of mortality and/or ICU admission, compared with White patients (16.9% vs. 12.8%), and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed Black race was independently associated with mortality/ICU admission after adjustments for covariates (OR, 3.7; P = .002).

Black race was also associated with increased risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospital admission (35.8% vs. 30.2%), and after adjustment for covariates this was found to be an independent predictor (OR, 1.7; P = .04).

“This higher COVID-19 risk in Black individuals is also seen in the general population, so these results are not that surprising and it doesn’t appear to be an effect specific to MS patients,” Dr. Salter commented.
 

U.K. data on risk of contracting COVID-19 

A U.K. study also suggested race to be an independent predictor in the risk of contracting COVID-19 in patients with MS.

The study of more than 5,000 patients with MS showed that those from a Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group were twice as likely to report having COVID-19 than those who were White.

The study, which was conducted during the U.K. lockdown, also found that the trend of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS is comparable with that of the U.K. general population.

Presenting the data, Afagh Garjani, MD, concluded: “During a period with strict physical distancing measures, patients with MS are not at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.”

Dr. Garjani, a neurology clinical research fellow at the University of Nottingham, (England), explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced uncertainties into the MS community, and the focus so far has been the severity of infection among people with MS who have COVID-19.

“This approach has left questions about the risk of contracting disease in people with MS unanswered, which has implications as society gradually returns to normal,” she said.

Dr. Garjani presented data from the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR), which has been collecting demographic and MS-related data since 2011 from patients with MS throughout the United Kingdom.

On March 17 – just before the lockdown in United Kingdom – existing participants of the UKMSR were asked to join the COVID-19 study. The study was also advertised through social media. In this ongoing study, people with MS answered a COVID-19–related survey at participation and a different follow-up survey every 2 weeks depending on whether they contracted COVID-19.

The COVID-19 study included 5,309 patients with MS. The mean age of the study population was 52.4 years, 76.1% were female, and 95.7% were White. Of the 5,309 patients, 535 (10%) reported a self-diagnosis of COVID-19. Because of limited availability of tests in the United Kingdom at the time, only 75 patents had a positive polymerase chain reaction result.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest community-based study of COVID-19 in patients with MS worldwide,” Dr. Garjani said. She presented results from the period March 23 to June 24, when the United Kingdom was in a period of lockdown with vulnerable groups encouraged to self-isolate completely.

In this MS cohort, 47% reported self-isolating at some point. Those at older age and higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were more likely to have self-isolated.

The researchers did not find that patients with progressive MS or those on disease-modifying therapies in general isolated more, but patients on monoclonal antibody drugs and fingolimod were more likely to self-isolate versus those on other therapies. “This may be because there are concerns about infection with these drugs and patients on these therapies may be more concerned about contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Garjani suggested.

In terms of contracting COVID, the researchers found a reduced risk of COVID-19 (self-diagnosed) in patients with older age and higher EDSS. “This is not really surprising that these patients were more likely to self-isolate,” Dr. Garjani commented.

No association was seen between type of MS, disease duration, disease-modifying therapy in general, and risk of COVID-19. No individual drug treatment increased risk versus no therapy or versus self-injectables. But there was an increased risk of contracting the virus in patients whose race was Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (OR, 2.2), which is in line with findings from the general population.

“This study is unique – the denominator is all people with MS. We are looking primarily at the risk of contracting COVID-19. Other studies are focusing more on people with MS who have COVID and assessing risk of a severe COVID outcome. Our results are not contradicting the findings from those studies,” Dr. Garjani said.

The results were similar only when patients with a confirmed COVID-19 test were considered.

In terms of outcomes in those who reported COVID-19 infection, preliminary results have not shown any MS factors – such as EDSS, age, type of MS, drug therapy in general – to be associated with outcome.

“Since the COVID-19 outbreak started there has been concern among MS patients, especially among those on disease-modifying therapies, about whether they are at increased risk of infection and severe disease,” Dr. Garjani said.

“We found similar trends of rates of infection in MS patients and the general population, and no signal of increased risks in those with higher EDSS or progressive MS. The caveat is that this study was conducted in a period of lockdown, but we adjusted for self-isolating behavior in the multivariable regression analysis,” she noted.

Dr. Salter is a statistical editor for the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. Dr. Garjani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care is not bouncing back to its prepandemic status, according to a new survey published by the Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) and Larry A. Green Center.

Since mid-March these organizations have issued short weekly and biweekly surveys to U.S. primary care physicians in an attempt to find the pulse of the county’s first line of care. “There is not a federal office for primary care, and it’s been anemically funded for decades,” Rebecca Etz, PhD, said in an interview. Yet these clinics represent the front lines of U.S. health care, and it’s where most Americans go for care and COVID-19 care, said Dr. Etz, director of the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center, which is devoted to primary care research, development, and advocacy.

The latest survey responses, collected between Sept. 4 and 6, confirm what researchers had suspected: Primary care isn’t on solid footing. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed emphatically that primary care has bounced back, and another 13% said things were better than earlier this year but not normal.

Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said that revenue and pay are significantly lower than they were before the pandemic and net losses threaten their practices’ viability. Almost half (49%) said their mental exhaustion from work was at an all-time high.

“Because of how our system is set up – it’s a fee-for-service model – the more patients you see, the more money you get,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director at the Graham Center, a leading think tank on family medicine and health care policy. But the stay-at-home order, aversion to telehealth, and fear of in-person visits have been keeping patients away – and driving primary care revenue down. Even when practices transition to and expand their telehealth, payer reimbursement is not yet on parity with in-person visits.

Right now, primary care physicians are doing fewer procedures and spending more time on video visits. “So you may have the same overhead and time investment but you’re getting paid a fraction,” Dr. Etz said. In August, 50% of primary care physicians reported they were working the same or more hours per week as they did before the pandemic but for less money, according to an earlier survey from the Green Center and the PCC. That loss of revenue is compounded by the need for expensive personal protective equipment and preparation for the upcoming flu season, Dr. Etz said.
 

Ongoing surveys reveal stress

Over the last 20 weeks or so, the Green Center and PCC together have disseminated weekly (through June) or biweekly surveys to 100 professional organizations. Because there isn’t an entity that represents all of primary care and claims data take years to process, these surveys are intended to get real-time feedback from clinicians who are providing a lot of patient care during the pandemic.

The sample sizes are admittedly small, with the most recent survey including 489 clinicians. Dr. Jabbarpour noted, “489 – it’s a good number, but you would want more.” Generally, for a great survey response you’d want 20%-30% of the physician population because then you could assume you’re getting a good mix of geographies, practice sizes, and settings, she said.

Respondents to the most recent survey were from 49 different states; 70% identified their practice as family medicine. One-third had between one and three physicians in their practice and 40% had 10 or more clinicians. “It’s not perfect, but it sounds pretty representative of the primary care workforce,” Dr. Jabbarpour continued.

The latest Green Center-PCC survey, published last week, also found that one in five physicians surveyed said at least one clinician in their practice had opted for early retirement or left practice as a direct result of the pandemic. These declines in clinician staffing come as school reopenings threaten to cause a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and the 2021 flu season could complicate COVID-19 care and testing.
 

Shortfall could cascade to other specialties

News that primary care is both struggling and shrinking doesn’t come as a surprise to those who research this area, according to Dr. Jabbarpour. Yet it matters “because primary care is where the majority of Americans get their health care.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, primary care accounts for 50% of all office visits. But the sector only encompasses 30% of the clinician workforce, according to a 2019 study of physician supply, and accounts for just 7% of national health expenditures, according to a separate 2019 study that measured primary care investment.

If primary care doesn’t bounce back, the shortfall could overwhelm the rest of the health care system, Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If primary care shortages increase, then urgent cares, ERs, and hospitals will become overwhelmed.”

Or public health could suffer as people don’t seek care at all. A study published earlier this summer found that up to 35% of excess deaths during the pandemic were not caused by COVID-19. Instead, they can be attributed to treatable causes, like heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, the researchers concluded. In Dr. Etz’s estimation, this high cost is a glimpse of what happens when there isn’t adequate access to primary care.

When asked about the frequency of the PCC/Green Center surveys, Bianca Frogner, PhD, a health economist and deputy director at the University of Washington Primary Care Innovation Lab in Seattle, said it’s unusual to have this regularity. Also, it’s unique in that it offers a constant mix of physicians. “It’s a small sample, but it still gives a voice where there isn’t one.”

Smaller weekly surveys and secondary analysis projects from the Graham Center, an American Academy of Family Physicians affiliated research center, reinforce findings of the Green Center. The Graham Center surveys also found primary care is taking a financial hit, staff is being furloughed, and patient volume is down, according to Dr. Jabbarpour, who has been involved in most of the Graham Center’s work on COVID.

Dr. Frogner, Dr. Etz, and Dr. Jabbarpour agree that, as a nation, the United States has chronically underinvested in primary care, and now the system is in crisis. The hope is that the survey data gives policymakers, state leaders, and the federal government a better idea of what’s happening on the ground.

It’s also important for researchers “keeping an eye out for the available supply of primary care for certain populations,” Dr. Frogner said. The current conditions are especially a threat to rural and underserved areas, she added.

If primary health care isn’t near recovery that’s a problem for the entire population, Dr. Etz said. And what happens if there’s another surge of COVID-19 or even a second pandemic in our lifetime? Her recommendation: Treat it like disaster recovery. Step one is “Stop the hemorrhaging – they need immediate cash flow.”
 

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

Primary care is not bouncing back to its prepandemic status, according to a new survey published by the Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) and Larry A. Green Center.

Since mid-March these organizations have issued short weekly and biweekly surveys to U.S. primary care physicians in an attempt to find the pulse of the county’s first line of care. “There is not a federal office for primary care, and it’s been anemically funded for decades,” Rebecca Etz, PhD, said in an interview. Yet these clinics represent the front lines of U.S. health care, and it’s where most Americans go for care and COVID-19 care, said Dr. Etz, director of the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center, which is devoted to primary care research, development, and advocacy.

The latest survey responses, collected between Sept. 4 and 6, confirm what researchers had suspected: Primary care isn’t on solid footing. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed emphatically that primary care has bounced back, and another 13% said things were better than earlier this year but not normal.

Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said that revenue and pay are significantly lower than they were before the pandemic and net losses threaten their practices’ viability. Almost half (49%) said their mental exhaustion from work was at an all-time high.

“Because of how our system is set up – it’s a fee-for-service model – the more patients you see, the more money you get,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director at the Graham Center, a leading think tank on family medicine and health care policy. But the stay-at-home order, aversion to telehealth, and fear of in-person visits have been keeping patients away – and driving primary care revenue down. Even when practices transition to and expand their telehealth, payer reimbursement is not yet on parity with in-person visits.

Right now, primary care physicians are doing fewer procedures and spending more time on video visits. “So you may have the same overhead and time investment but you’re getting paid a fraction,” Dr. Etz said. In August, 50% of primary care physicians reported they were working the same or more hours per week as they did before the pandemic but for less money, according to an earlier survey from the Green Center and the PCC. That loss of revenue is compounded by the need for expensive personal protective equipment and preparation for the upcoming flu season, Dr. Etz said.
 

Ongoing surveys reveal stress

Over the last 20 weeks or so, the Green Center and PCC together have disseminated weekly (through June) or biweekly surveys to 100 professional organizations. Because there isn’t an entity that represents all of primary care and claims data take years to process, these surveys are intended to get real-time feedback from clinicians who are providing a lot of patient care during the pandemic.

The sample sizes are admittedly small, with the most recent survey including 489 clinicians. Dr. Jabbarpour noted, “489 – it’s a good number, but you would want more.” Generally, for a great survey response you’d want 20%-30% of the physician population because then you could assume you’re getting a good mix of geographies, practice sizes, and settings, she said.

Respondents to the most recent survey were from 49 different states; 70% identified their practice as family medicine. One-third had between one and three physicians in their practice and 40% had 10 or more clinicians. “It’s not perfect, but it sounds pretty representative of the primary care workforce,” Dr. Jabbarpour continued.

The latest Green Center-PCC survey, published last week, also found that one in five physicians surveyed said at least one clinician in their practice had opted for early retirement or left practice as a direct result of the pandemic. These declines in clinician staffing come as school reopenings threaten to cause a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and the 2021 flu season could complicate COVID-19 care and testing.
 

Shortfall could cascade to other specialties

News that primary care is both struggling and shrinking doesn’t come as a surprise to those who research this area, according to Dr. Jabbarpour. Yet it matters “because primary care is where the majority of Americans get their health care.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, primary care accounts for 50% of all office visits. But the sector only encompasses 30% of the clinician workforce, according to a 2019 study of physician supply, and accounts for just 7% of national health expenditures, according to a separate 2019 study that measured primary care investment.

If primary care doesn’t bounce back, the shortfall could overwhelm the rest of the health care system, Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If primary care shortages increase, then urgent cares, ERs, and hospitals will become overwhelmed.”

Or public health could suffer as people don’t seek care at all. A study published earlier this summer found that up to 35% of excess deaths during the pandemic were not caused by COVID-19. Instead, they can be attributed to treatable causes, like heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, the researchers concluded. In Dr. Etz’s estimation, this high cost is a glimpse of what happens when there isn’t adequate access to primary care.

When asked about the frequency of the PCC/Green Center surveys, Bianca Frogner, PhD, a health economist and deputy director at the University of Washington Primary Care Innovation Lab in Seattle, said it’s unusual to have this regularity. Also, it’s unique in that it offers a constant mix of physicians. “It’s a small sample, but it still gives a voice where there isn’t one.”

Smaller weekly surveys and secondary analysis projects from the Graham Center, an American Academy of Family Physicians affiliated research center, reinforce findings of the Green Center. The Graham Center surveys also found primary care is taking a financial hit, staff is being furloughed, and patient volume is down, according to Dr. Jabbarpour, who has been involved in most of the Graham Center’s work on COVID.

Dr. Frogner, Dr. Etz, and Dr. Jabbarpour agree that, as a nation, the United States has chronically underinvested in primary care, and now the system is in crisis. The hope is that the survey data gives policymakers, state leaders, and the federal government a better idea of what’s happening on the ground.

It’s also important for researchers “keeping an eye out for the available supply of primary care for certain populations,” Dr. Frogner said. The current conditions are especially a threat to rural and underserved areas, she added.

If primary health care isn’t near recovery that’s a problem for the entire population, Dr. Etz said. And what happens if there’s another surge of COVID-19 or even a second pandemic in our lifetime? Her recommendation: Treat it like disaster recovery. Step one is “Stop the hemorrhaging – they need immediate cash flow.”
 

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

Primary care is not bouncing back to its prepandemic status, according to a new survey published by the Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) and Larry A. Green Center.

Since mid-March these organizations have issued short weekly and biweekly surveys to U.S. primary care physicians in an attempt to find the pulse of the county’s first line of care. “There is not a federal office for primary care, and it’s been anemically funded for decades,” Rebecca Etz, PhD, said in an interview. Yet these clinics represent the front lines of U.S. health care, and it’s where most Americans go for care and COVID-19 care, said Dr. Etz, director of the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center, which is devoted to primary care research, development, and advocacy.

The latest survey responses, collected between Sept. 4 and 6, confirm what researchers had suspected: Primary care isn’t on solid footing. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed emphatically that primary care has bounced back, and another 13% said things were better than earlier this year but not normal.

Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said that revenue and pay are significantly lower than they were before the pandemic and net losses threaten their practices’ viability. Almost half (49%) said their mental exhaustion from work was at an all-time high.

“Because of how our system is set up – it’s a fee-for-service model – the more patients you see, the more money you get,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director at the Graham Center, a leading think tank on family medicine and health care policy. But the stay-at-home order, aversion to telehealth, and fear of in-person visits have been keeping patients away – and driving primary care revenue down. Even when practices transition to and expand their telehealth, payer reimbursement is not yet on parity with in-person visits.

Right now, primary care physicians are doing fewer procedures and spending more time on video visits. “So you may have the same overhead and time investment but you’re getting paid a fraction,” Dr. Etz said. In August, 50% of primary care physicians reported they were working the same or more hours per week as they did before the pandemic but for less money, according to an earlier survey from the Green Center and the PCC. That loss of revenue is compounded by the need for expensive personal protective equipment and preparation for the upcoming flu season, Dr. Etz said.
 

Ongoing surveys reveal stress

Over the last 20 weeks or so, the Green Center and PCC together have disseminated weekly (through June) or biweekly surveys to 100 professional organizations. Because there isn’t an entity that represents all of primary care and claims data take years to process, these surveys are intended to get real-time feedback from clinicians who are providing a lot of patient care during the pandemic.

The sample sizes are admittedly small, with the most recent survey including 489 clinicians. Dr. Jabbarpour noted, “489 – it’s a good number, but you would want more.” Generally, for a great survey response you’d want 20%-30% of the physician population because then you could assume you’re getting a good mix of geographies, practice sizes, and settings, she said.

Respondents to the most recent survey were from 49 different states; 70% identified their practice as family medicine. One-third had between one and three physicians in their practice and 40% had 10 or more clinicians. “It’s not perfect, but it sounds pretty representative of the primary care workforce,” Dr. Jabbarpour continued.

The latest Green Center-PCC survey, published last week, also found that one in five physicians surveyed said at least one clinician in their practice had opted for early retirement or left practice as a direct result of the pandemic. These declines in clinician staffing come as school reopenings threaten to cause a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and the 2021 flu season could complicate COVID-19 care and testing.
 

Shortfall could cascade to other specialties

News that primary care is both struggling and shrinking doesn’t come as a surprise to those who research this area, according to Dr. Jabbarpour. Yet it matters “because primary care is where the majority of Americans get their health care.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, primary care accounts for 50% of all office visits. But the sector only encompasses 30% of the clinician workforce, according to a 2019 study of physician supply, and accounts for just 7% of national health expenditures, according to a separate 2019 study that measured primary care investment.

If primary care doesn’t bounce back, the shortfall could overwhelm the rest of the health care system, Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If primary care shortages increase, then urgent cares, ERs, and hospitals will become overwhelmed.”

Or public health could suffer as people don’t seek care at all. A study published earlier this summer found that up to 35% of excess deaths during the pandemic were not caused by COVID-19. Instead, they can be attributed to treatable causes, like heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, the researchers concluded. In Dr. Etz’s estimation, this high cost is a glimpse of what happens when there isn’t adequate access to primary care.

When asked about the frequency of the PCC/Green Center surveys, Bianca Frogner, PhD, a health economist and deputy director at the University of Washington Primary Care Innovation Lab in Seattle, said it’s unusual to have this regularity. Also, it’s unique in that it offers a constant mix of physicians. “It’s a small sample, but it still gives a voice where there isn’t one.”

Smaller weekly surveys and secondary analysis projects from the Graham Center, an American Academy of Family Physicians affiliated research center, reinforce findings of the Green Center. The Graham Center surveys also found primary care is taking a financial hit, staff is being furloughed, and patient volume is down, according to Dr. Jabbarpour, who has been involved in most of the Graham Center’s work on COVID.

Dr. Frogner, Dr. Etz, and Dr. Jabbarpour agree that, as a nation, the United States has chronically underinvested in primary care, and now the system is in crisis. The hope is that the survey data gives policymakers, state leaders, and the federal government a better idea of what’s happening on the ground.

It’s also important for researchers “keeping an eye out for the available supply of primary care for certain populations,” Dr. Frogner said. The current conditions are especially a threat to rural and underserved areas, she added.

If primary health care isn’t near recovery that’s a problem for the entire population, Dr. Etz said. And what happens if there’s another surge of COVID-19 or even a second pandemic in our lifetime? Her recommendation: Treat it like disaster recovery. Step one is “Stop the hemorrhaging – they need immediate cash flow.”
 

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.