User login
The Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management® is an independent, peer-reviewed journal offering evidence-based, practical information for improving the quality, safety, and value of health care.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Experts advocate for the elimination of daylight savings time
In the interest of public health and safety, – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.
“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.
The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
Significant health risks
In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.
There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.
“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.
A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.
“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.
Strong support
The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.
Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.
“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.
In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the interest of public health and safety, – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.
“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.
The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
Significant health risks
In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.
There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.
“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.
A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.
“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.
Strong support
The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.
Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.
“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.
In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the interest of public health and safety, – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.
“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.
The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
Significant health risks
In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.
There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.
“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.
A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.
“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.
Strong support
The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.
Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.
“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.
In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.
This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SLEEP 2020
Ten ways docs are cutting costs and saving money
“Some of our physician clients have seen their income decrease by as much as 50%,” says Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Many physicians had previously figured that whatever financial obligations they had wouldn’t be a problem because whatever amount they were making would continue, and if there were a decline it would be gradual.” However, assumption is now creating financial strain for many doctors.
Vikram Tarugu, MD, a gastroenterologist and CEO of Detox of South Florida in Okeechobee, Florida, says he has watched his budget for years, but has become even more careful with his spending in the past few months.
“It has helped me a lot to adjust to the new normal when it comes to the financial side of things,” Dr. Tarugu said. “Patients aren’t coming in as much as they used to, so my income has really been affected.”
Primary care physicians have seen a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume as a result of COVID-19. The impact has been even more severe for specialists. Even for physicians whose practices remain busy and whose family members haven’t lost their jobs or income, broader concerns about the economy may be reason enough for physicians to adopt cost-cutting measures.
In Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020, we asked physicians to share their best cost-cutting tips. Many illustrate the lengths to which physicians are going to conserve money.
Here’s a look at some of the advice they shared, along with guidance from experts on how to make it work for you:
1. Create a written budget, even if you think it’s pointless.
Physicians said their most important piece of advice includes the following: “Use a formal budget to track progress,” “write out a budget,” “plan intermittent/large expenses in advance,” “Make sure all expenses are paid before you spend on leisure.”
Nearly 7 in 10 physicians say they have a budget for personal expenses, yet only one-quarter of those who do have a formal, written budget. Writing out a spending plan is key to being intentional about your spending, making sure that you’re living within your means, and identifying areas in which you may be able to cut back.
“Financial planning is all about cash flow, and everybody should know the amount of money coming in, how much is going out, and the difference between the two,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “That’s important in good times, but it’s even more important now when we see physicians taking pay cuts.”
Many physicians have found that budget apps or software programs are easier to work with than anticipated; some even walk you through the process of creating a budget. To get the most out of the apps, you’ll need to check them regularly and make changes based on their data.
“Sometimes there’s this false belief that just by signing up, you are automatically going to be better at budgeting,” says Scott Snider, CFP, a certified financial planner and partner with Mellen Money Management in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. “Basically, these apps are a great way to identify problem areas of spending. We have a tendency as humans to underestimate how much we spend on things like Starbucks, dining out, and Amazon shopping.”
One of the doctors’ tips that requires the most willpower is to “pay all expenses before spending on leisure.” That’s because we live in an instant gratification world, and want everything right away, Ms. Guerich said.
“I also think there’s an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and pressure associated with this profession,” she said. “The stereotype is that physicians are high-income earners so ‘We should be able to do that’ or ‘Mom and dad are doctors, so they can afford it.’ “
Creating and then revisiting your budget progress on a monthly or quarterly basis can give you a feeling of accomplishment and keep you motivated to stay with it.
Keep in mind that budgeting is a continual process rather than a singular event, and you’ll likely adjust it over time as your income and goals change.
2. Save more as you earn more.
Respondents to our Physician Compensation Report gave the following recommendations: “Pay yourself first,” “I put half of my bonus into an investment account no matter how much it is,” “I allocate extra money and put it into a savings account.”
Dr. Greenwald said, “I have a rule that every client needs to be saving 20% of their gross income toward retirement, including whatever the employer is putting in.”
Putting a portion of every paycheck into savings is key to making progress toward financial goals. Start by building an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months’ worth of expenses in it and making sure you’re saving at least enough for retirement to get any potential employer match.
Mr. Snider suggests increasing the percentage you save every time you get a raise.
“The thought behind that strategy is that when a doctor receives a pay raise – even if it’s just a cost-of-living raise of 3% – an extra 1% saved doesn’t reduce their take-home pay year-over-year,” he says. “In fact, they still take home more money, and they save more money. Win-win.”
3. Focus on paying down your debt.
Physicians told us how they were working to pay down debt with the following recommendations: “Accelerate debt reduction,” “I make additional principal payment to our home mortgage,” “We are aggressively attacking our remaining student loans.”
Reducing or eliminating debt is key to increasing cash flow, which can make it easier to meet all of your other financial goals. One-quarter of physicians have credit card debt, which typically carries interest rates higher than other types of debt, making it far more expensive. Focus on paying off such high-interest debt first, before moving on to other types of debt such as auto loans, student loans, or a mortgage.
“Credit card debt and any unsecured debt should be paid before anything else,” Mr. Snider says. “Getting rid of those high interest rates should be a priority. And that type of debt has less flexible terms than student debt.”
4. Great opportunity to take advantage of record-low interest rates.
Physicians said that, to save money, they are recommending the following: “Consolidating student debt into our mortgage,” “Accelerating payments of the principle on our mortgage,” “Making sure we have an affordable mortgage.”
With interest rates at an all-time low, even those who’ve recently refinanced might see significant savings by refinancing again. Given the associated fees, it typically makes sense to refinance if you can reduce your mortgage rate by at least a point, and you’re planning to stay in the home for at least 5 years.
“Depending on how much lower your rate is, refinancing can make a big difference in your monthly payments,” Ms. Guerich said. “For physicians who might need an emergency reserve but don’t have cash on hand, a HELOC [Home Equity Line of Credit] is a great way to accomplish that.”
5. Be wary of credit cards dangers; use cards wisely.
Physician respondents recommended the following: “Use 0% interest offers on credit cards,” “Only have one card and pay it off every month,” “Never carry over balance.”
Nearly 80% of physicians have three or more credit cards, with 18% reporting that they have seven or more. When used wisely, credit cards can be an important tool for managing finances. Many credit cards come with tools that can help with budgeting, and credit cards rewards and perks can offer real value to users. That said, rewards typically are not valuable enough to offset the cost of interest on balances (or the associated damage to your credit score) that aren’t paid off each month.
“If you’re paying a high rate on credit card balances that carry over every month, regardless of your income, that could be a symptom that you may be spending more than you should,” says Dan Keady, a CFP and chief financial planning strategist at financial services firm TIAA.
6. Give less to Uncle Sam: Keep it for yourself.
Physicians said that they do the following: “Maximize tax-free/deferred savings (401k, HSA, etc.),” “Give to charity to reduce tax,” “Use pre-tax dollars for childcare and healthcare.”
Not only does saving in workplace retirement accounts help you build your nest egg, but it also reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes in a given year. Physicians should also take advantage of other ways to reduce their income for tax purposes, such as saving money in a health savings account or flexible savings account.
The 401(k) or 403(b) contribution limit for this year is $19,500 ($26,000) for those age 50 years and older. Self-employed physicians can save even more money via a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, says Ms. Guerich said. They can save up to 25% of compensation, up to $57,000 in 2020.
7. Automate everything and spare yourself the headache.
Physicians said the following: “Designate money from your paycheck directly to tax deferred and taxable accounts automatically,” “Use automatic payment for credit card balance monthly,” “Automate your savings.”
You probably already automate your 401(k) contributions, but you can also automate bill payments, emergency savings contributions and other financial tasks. For busy physicians, this can make it easier to stick to your financial plan and achieve your goals.
“The older you get, the busier you get, said Mr. Snider says. “Automation can definitely help with that. But make sure you are checking in quarterly to make sure that everything is still in line with your plan. The problem with automation is when you forget about it completely and just let everything sit there.”
8. Save separately for big purchases.
Sometimes it’s the big major expenses that can start to derail a budget. Physicians told us the following tactics for large purchases: “We buy affordable cars and take budget vacations,” “I buy used cars,” “We save in advance for new cars and only buy cars with cash.”
The decision of which car to purchase or where to go on a family vacation is a personal one, and some physicians take great enjoyment and pride in driving a luxury vehicle or traveling to exotic locales. The key, experts say, is to factor the cost of that car into the rest of your budget, and make sure that it’s not preventing you from achieving other financial goals.
“I don’t like to judge or tell clients how they should spend their money,” said Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “Some people like cars, we have clients that have two planes, others want a second house or like to travel. Each person has their own interest where they may spend more relative to other people, but as long as they are meeting their savings targets, I encourage them to spend their money and enjoy what they enjoy most, guilt free.”
Mr. Snider suggests setting up a savings account separate from emergency or retirement accounts to set aside money if you have a goal for a large future purchase, such as a boat or a second home.
“That way, the funds don’t get commingled, and it’s explicitly clear whether or not the doctor is on target,” he says. “It also prevents them from treating their emergency savings account as an ATM machine.”
9. Start saving for college when the kids are little.
Respondents said the following: “We are buying less to save for the kids’ college education,” “We set up direct deposit into college and retirement savings plans,” “We have a 529 account for college savings.”
Helping pay for their children’s college education is an important financial goal for many physicians. The earlier that you start saving, the less you’ll have to save overall, thanks to compound interest. State 529 accounts are often a good place to start, especially if your state offers a tax incentive for doing so.
Mr. Snider recommends that physicians start small, with an initial investment of $1,000 per month and $100 per month contributions. Assuming a 7% rate of return and 17 years’ worth of savings, this would generate just over $42,000. (Note, current typical rates of return are less than 7%).
“Ideally, as other goals are accomplished and personal debt gets paid off, the doctor is ramping up their savings to have at least 50% of college expenses covered from their 529 college savings,” he says.
10. Watch out for the temptation of impulse purchases.
Physicians said the following: “Avoid impulse purchases,” “Avoid impulse shopping, make a list for the store and stick to it,” “Wait to buy things on sale.”
Nothing wrecks a budget like an impulse buy. More than half (54%) of U.S. shoppers have admitted to spending $100 or more on an impulse purchase. And 20% of shoppers have spent at least $1,000 on an impulse buy. Avoid buyers’ remorse by waiting a few days to make large purchase decisions or by limiting your unplanned spending to a certain dollar amount within your budget.
Online shopping may be a particular temptation. Dr. Tarugu, the Florida gastroenterologist, has focused on reducing those impulse buys as well, deleting all online shopping apps from his and his family’s phones.
“You won’t notice how much you have ordered online until it arrives at your doorstep,” he said. “It’s really important to keep it at bay.”
Mr. Keady, the TIAA chief planning strategist, recommended this tactic: Calculate the number of patients (or hours) you’d need to see in order to earn the cash required to make the purchase.
“Then, in a mindful way, figure out the amount of value derived from the purchase,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“Some of our physician clients have seen their income decrease by as much as 50%,” says Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Many physicians had previously figured that whatever financial obligations they had wouldn’t be a problem because whatever amount they were making would continue, and if there were a decline it would be gradual.” However, assumption is now creating financial strain for many doctors.
Vikram Tarugu, MD, a gastroenterologist and CEO of Detox of South Florida in Okeechobee, Florida, says he has watched his budget for years, but has become even more careful with his spending in the past few months.
“It has helped me a lot to adjust to the new normal when it comes to the financial side of things,” Dr. Tarugu said. “Patients aren’t coming in as much as they used to, so my income has really been affected.”
Primary care physicians have seen a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume as a result of COVID-19. The impact has been even more severe for specialists. Even for physicians whose practices remain busy and whose family members haven’t lost their jobs or income, broader concerns about the economy may be reason enough for physicians to adopt cost-cutting measures.
In Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020, we asked physicians to share their best cost-cutting tips. Many illustrate the lengths to which physicians are going to conserve money.
Here’s a look at some of the advice they shared, along with guidance from experts on how to make it work for you:
1. Create a written budget, even if you think it’s pointless.
Physicians said their most important piece of advice includes the following: “Use a formal budget to track progress,” “write out a budget,” “plan intermittent/large expenses in advance,” “Make sure all expenses are paid before you spend on leisure.”
Nearly 7 in 10 physicians say they have a budget for personal expenses, yet only one-quarter of those who do have a formal, written budget. Writing out a spending plan is key to being intentional about your spending, making sure that you’re living within your means, and identifying areas in which you may be able to cut back.
“Financial planning is all about cash flow, and everybody should know the amount of money coming in, how much is going out, and the difference between the two,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “That’s important in good times, but it’s even more important now when we see physicians taking pay cuts.”
Many physicians have found that budget apps or software programs are easier to work with than anticipated; some even walk you through the process of creating a budget. To get the most out of the apps, you’ll need to check them regularly and make changes based on their data.
“Sometimes there’s this false belief that just by signing up, you are automatically going to be better at budgeting,” says Scott Snider, CFP, a certified financial planner and partner with Mellen Money Management in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. “Basically, these apps are a great way to identify problem areas of spending. We have a tendency as humans to underestimate how much we spend on things like Starbucks, dining out, and Amazon shopping.”
One of the doctors’ tips that requires the most willpower is to “pay all expenses before spending on leisure.” That’s because we live in an instant gratification world, and want everything right away, Ms. Guerich said.
“I also think there’s an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and pressure associated with this profession,” she said. “The stereotype is that physicians are high-income earners so ‘We should be able to do that’ or ‘Mom and dad are doctors, so they can afford it.’ “
Creating and then revisiting your budget progress on a monthly or quarterly basis can give you a feeling of accomplishment and keep you motivated to stay with it.
Keep in mind that budgeting is a continual process rather than a singular event, and you’ll likely adjust it over time as your income and goals change.
2. Save more as you earn more.
Respondents to our Physician Compensation Report gave the following recommendations: “Pay yourself first,” “I put half of my bonus into an investment account no matter how much it is,” “I allocate extra money and put it into a savings account.”
Dr. Greenwald said, “I have a rule that every client needs to be saving 20% of their gross income toward retirement, including whatever the employer is putting in.”
Putting a portion of every paycheck into savings is key to making progress toward financial goals. Start by building an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months’ worth of expenses in it and making sure you’re saving at least enough for retirement to get any potential employer match.
Mr. Snider suggests increasing the percentage you save every time you get a raise.
“The thought behind that strategy is that when a doctor receives a pay raise – even if it’s just a cost-of-living raise of 3% – an extra 1% saved doesn’t reduce their take-home pay year-over-year,” he says. “In fact, they still take home more money, and they save more money. Win-win.”
3. Focus on paying down your debt.
Physicians told us how they were working to pay down debt with the following recommendations: “Accelerate debt reduction,” “I make additional principal payment to our home mortgage,” “We are aggressively attacking our remaining student loans.”
Reducing or eliminating debt is key to increasing cash flow, which can make it easier to meet all of your other financial goals. One-quarter of physicians have credit card debt, which typically carries interest rates higher than other types of debt, making it far more expensive. Focus on paying off such high-interest debt first, before moving on to other types of debt such as auto loans, student loans, or a mortgage.
“Credit card debt and any unsecured debt should be paid before anything else,” Mr. Snider says. “Getting rid of those high interest rates should be a priority. And that type of debt has less flexible terms than student debt.”
4. Great opportunity to take advantage of record-low interest rates.
Physicians said that, to save money, they are recommending the following: “Consolidating student debt into our mortgage,” “Accelerating payments of the principle on our mortgage,” “Making sure we have an affordable mortgage.”
With interest rates at an all-time low, even those who’ve recently refinanced might see significant savings by refinancing again. Given the associated fees, it typically makes sense to refinance if you can reduce your mortgage rate by at least a point, and you’re planning to stay in the home for at least 5 years.
“Depending on how much lower your rate is, refinancing can make a big difference in your monthly payments,” Ms. Guerich said. “For physicians who might need an emergency reserve but don’t have cash on hand, a HELOC [Home Equity Line of Credit] is a great way to accomplish that.”
5. Be wary of credit cards dangers; use cards wisely.
Physician respondents recommended the following: “Use 0% interest offers on credit cards,” “Only have one card and pay it off every month,” “Never carry over balance.”
Nearly 80% of physicians have three or more credit cards, with 18% reporting that they have seven or more. When used wisely, credit cards can be an important tool for managing finances. Many credit cards come with tools that can help with budgeting, and credit cards rewards and perks can offer real value to users. That said, rewards typically are not valuable enough to offset the cost of interest on balances (or the associated damage to your credit score) that aren’t paid off each month.
“If you’re paying a high rate on credit card balances that carry over every month, regardless of your income, that could be a symptom that you may be spending more than you should,” says Dan Keady, a CFP and chief financial planning strategist at financial services firm TIAA.
6. Give less to Uncle Sam: Keep it for yourself.
Physicians said that they do the following: “Maximize tax-free/deferred savings (401k, HSA, etc.),” “Give to charity to reduce tax,” “Use pre-tax dollars for childcare and healthcare.”
Not only does saving in workplace retirement accounts help you build your nest egg, but it also reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes in a given year. Physicians should also take advantage of other ways to reduce their income for tax purposes, such as saving money in a health savings account or flexible savings account.
The 401(k) or 403(b) contribution limit for this year is $19,500 ($26,000) for those age 50 years and older. Self-employed physicians can save even more money via a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, says Ms. Guerich said. They can save up to 25% of compensation, up to $57,000 in 2020.
7. Automate everything and spare yourself the headache.
Physicians said the following: “Designate money from your paycheck directly to tax deferred and taxable accounts automatically,” “Use automatic payment for credit card balance monthly,” “Automate your savings.”
You probably already automate your 401(k) contributions, but you can also automate bill payments, emergency savings contributions and other financial tasks. For busy physicians, this can make it easier to stick to your financial plan and achieve your goals.
“The older you get, the busier you get, said Mr. Snider says. “Automation can definitely help with that. But make sure you are checking in quarterly to make sure that everything is still in line with your plan. The problem with automation is when you forget about it completely and just let everything sit there.”
8. Save separately for big purchases.
Sometimes it’s the big major expenses that can start to derail a budget. Physicians told us the following tactics for large purchases: “We buy affordable cars and take budget vacations,” “I buy used cars,” “We save in advance for new cars and only buy cars with cash.”
The decision of which car to purchase or where to go on a family vacation is a personal one, and some physicians take great enjoyment and pride in driving a luxury vehicle or traveling to exotic locales. The key, experts say, is to factor the cost of that car into the rest of your budget, and make sure that it’s not preventing you from achieving other financial goals.
“I don’t like to judge or tell clients how they should spend their money,” said Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “Some people like cars, we have clients that have two planes, others want a second house or like to travel. Each person has their own interest where they may spend more relative to other people, but as long as they are meeting their savings targets, I encourage them to spend their money and enjoy what they enjoy most, guilt free.”
Mr. Snider suggests setting up a savings account separate from emergency or retirement accounts to set aside money if you have a goal for a large future purchase, such as a boat or a second home.
“That way, the funds don’t get commingled, and it’s explicitly clear whether or not the doctor is on target,” he says. “It also prevents them from treating their emergency savings account as an ATM machine.”
9. Start saving for college when the kids are little.
Respondents said the following: “We are buying less to save for the kids’ college education,” “We set up direct deposit into college and retirement savings plans,” “We have a 529 account for college savings.”
Helping pay for their children’s college education is an important financial goal for many physicians. The earlier that you start saving, the less you’ll have to save overall, thanks to compound interest. State 529 accounts are often a good place to start, especially if your state offers a tax incentive for doing so.
Mr. Snider recommends that physicians start small, with an initial investment of $1,000 per month and $100 per month contributions. Assuming a 7% rate of return and 17 years’ worth of savings, this would generate just over $42,000. (Note, current typical rates of return are less than 7%).
“Ideally, as other goals are accomplished and personal debt gets paid off, the doctor is ramping up their savings to have at least 50% of college expenses covered from their 529 college savings,” he says.
10. Watch out for the temptation of impulse purchases.
Physicians said the following: “Avoid impulse purchases,” “Avoid impulse shopping, make a list for the store and stick to it,” “Wait to buy things on sale.”
Nothing wrecks a budget like an impulse buy. More than half (54%) of U.S. shoppers have admitted to spending $100 or more on an impulse purchase. And 20% of shoppers have spent at least $1,000 on an impulse buy. Avoid buyers’ remorse by waiting a few days to make large purchase decisions or by limiting your unplanned spending to a certain dollar amount within your budget.
Online shopping may be a particular temptation. Dr. Tarugu, the Florida gastroenterologist, has focused on reducing those impulse buys as well, deleting all online shopping apps from his and his family’s phones.
“You won’t notice how much you have ordered online until it arrives at your doorstep,” he said. “It’s really important to keep it at bay.”
Mr. Keady, the TIAA chief planning strategist, recommended this tactic: Calculate the number of patients (or hours) you’d need to see in order to earn the cash required to make the purchase.
“Then, in a mindful way, figure out the amount of value derived from the purchase,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“Some of our physician clients have seen their income decrease by as much as 50%,” says Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Many physicians had previously figured that whatever financial obligations they had wouldn’t be a problem because whatever amount they were making would continue, and if there were a decline it would be gradual.” However, assumption is now creating financial strain for many doctors.
Vikram Tarugu, MD, a gastroenterologist and CEO of Detox of South Florida in Okeechobee, Florida, says he has watched his budget for years, but has become even more careful with his spending in the past few months.
“It has helped me a lot to adjust to the new normal when it comes to the financial side of things,” Dr. Tarugu said. “Patients aren’t coming in as much as they used to, so my income has really been affected.”
Primary care physicians have seen a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume as a result of COVID-19. The impact has been even more severe for specialists. Even for physicians whose practices remain busy and whose family members haven’t lost their jobs or income, broader concerns about the economy may be reason enough for physicians to adopt cost-cutting measures.
In Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020, we asked physicians to share their best cost-cutting tips. Many illustrate the lengths to which physicians are going to conserve money.
Here’s a look at some of the advice they shared, along with guidance from experts on how to make it work for you:
1. Create a written budget, even if you think it’s pointless.
Physicians said their most important piece of advice includes the following: “Use a formal budget to track progress,” “write out a budget,” “plan intermittent/large expenses in advance,” “Make sure all expenses are paid before you spend on leisure.”
Nearly 7 in 10 physicians say they have a budget for personal expenses, yet only one-quarter of those who do have a formal, written budget. Writing out a spending plan is key to being intentional about your spending, making sure that you’re living within your means, and identifying areas in which you may be able to cut back.
“Financial planning is all about cash flow, and everybody should know the amount of money coming in, how much is going out, and the difference between the two,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “That’s important in good times, but it’s even more important now when we see physicians taking pay cuts.”
Many physicians have found that budget apps or software programs are easier to work with than anticipated; some even walk you through the process of creating a budget. To get the most out of the apps, you’ll need to check them regularly and make changes based on their data.
“Sometimes there’s this false belief that just by signing up, you are automatically going to be better at budgeting,” says Scott Snider, CFP, a certified financial planner and partner with Mellen Money Management in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. “Basically, these apps are a great way to identify problem areas of spending. We have a tendency as humans to underestimate how much we spend on things like Starbucks, dining out, and Amazon shopping.”
One of the doctors’ tips that requires the most willpower is to “pay all expenses before spending on leisure.” That’s because we live in an instant gratification world, and want everything right away, Ms. Guerich said.
“I also think there’s an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and pressure associated with this profession,” she said. “The stereotype is that physicians are high-income earners so ‘We should be able to do that’ or ‘Mom and dad are doctors, so they can afford it.’ “
Creating and then revisiting your budget progress on a monthly or quarterly basis can give you a feeling of accomplishment and keep you motivated to stay with it.
Keep in mind that budgeting is a continual process rather than a singular event, and you’ll likely adjust it over time as your income and goals change.
2. Save more as you earn more.
Respondents to our Physician Compensation Report gave the following recommendations: “Pay yourself first,” “I put half of my bonus into an investment account no matter how much it is,” “I allocate extra money and put it into a savings account.”
Dr. Greenwald said, “I have a rule that every client needs to be saving 20% of their gross income toward retirement, including whatever the employer is putting in.”
Putting a portion of every paycheck into savings is key to making progress toward financial goals. Start by building an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months’ worth of expenses in it and making sure you’re saving at least enough for retirement to get any potential employer match.
Mr. Snider suggests increasing the percentage you save every time you get a raise.
“The thought behind that strategy is that when a doctor receives a pay raise – even if it’s just a cost-of-living raise of 3% – an extra 1% saved doesn’t reduce their take-home pay year-over-year,” he says. “In fact, they still take home more money, and they save more money. Win-win.”
3. Focus on paying down your debt.
Physicians told us how they were working to pay down debt with the following recommendations: “Accelerate debt reduction,” “I make additional principal payment to our home mortgage,” “We are aggressively attacking our remaining student loans.”
Reducing or eliminating debt is key to increasing cash flow, which can make it easier to meet all of your other financial goals. One-quarter of physicians have credit card debt, which typically carries interest rates higher than other types of debt, making it far more expensive. Focus on paying off such high-interest debt first, before moving on to other types of debt such as auto loans, student loans, or a mortgage.
“Credit card debt and any unsecured debt should be paid before anything else,” Mr. Snider says. “Getting rid of those high interest rates should be a priority. And that type of debt has less flexible terms than student debt.”
4. Great opportunity to take advantage of record-low interest rates.
Physicians said that, to save money, they are recommending the following: “Consolidating student debt into our mortgage,” “Accelerating payments of the principle on our mortgage,” “Making sure we have an affordable mortgage.”
With interest rates at an all-time low, even those who’ve recently refinanced might see significant savings by refinancing again. Given the associated fees, it typically makes sense to refinance if you can reduce your mortgage rate by at least a point, and you’re planning to stay in the home for at least 5 years.
“Depending on how much lower your rate is, refinancing can make a big difference in your monthly payments,” Ms. Guerich said. “For physicians who might need an emergency reserve but don’t have cash on hand, a HELOC [Home Equity Line of Credit] is a great way to accomplish that.”
5. Be wary of credit cards dangers; use cards wisely.
Physician respondents recommended the following: “Use 0% interest offers on credit cards,” “Only have one card and pay it off every month,” “Never carry over balance.”
Nearly 80% of physicians have three or more credit cards, with 18% reporting that they have seven or more. When used wisely, credit cards can be an important tool for managing finances. Many credit cards come with tools that can help with budgeting, and credit cards rewards and perks can offer real value to users. That said, rewards typically are not valuable enough to offset the cost of interest on balances (or the associated damage to your credit score) that aren’t paid off each month.
“If you’re paying a high rate on credit card balances that carry over every month, regardless of your income, that could be a symptom that you may be spending more than you should,” says Dan Keady, a CFP and chief financial planning strategist at financial services firm TIAA.
6. Give less to Uncle Sam: Keep it for yourself.
Physicians said that they do the following: “Maximize tax-free/deferred savings (401k, HSA, etc.),” “Give to charity to reduce tax,” “Use pre-tax dollars for childcare and healthcare.”
Not only does saving in workplace retirement accounts help you build your nest egg, but it also reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes in a given year. Physicians should also take advantage of other ways to reduce their income for tax purposes, such as saving money in a health savings account or flexible savings account.
The 401(k) or 403(b) contribution limit for this year is $19,500 ($26,000) for those age 50 years and older. Self-employed physicians can save even more money via a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, says Ms. Guerich said. They can save up to 25% of compensation, up to $57,000 in 2020.
7. Automate everything and spare yourself the headache.
Physicians said the following: “Designate money from your paycheck directly to tax deferred and taxable accounts automatically,” “Use automatic payment for credit card balance monthly,” “Automate your savings.”
You probably already automate your 401(k) contributions, but you can also automate bill payments, emergency savings contributions and other financial tasks. For busy physicians, this can make it easier to stick to your financial plan and achieve your goals.
“The older you get, the busier you get, said Mr. Snider says. “Automation can definitely help with that. But make sure you are checking in quarterly to make sure that everything is still in line with your plan. The problem with automation is when you forget about it completely and just let everything sit there.”
8. Save separately for big purchases.
Sometimes it’s the big major expenses that can start to derail a budget. Physicians told us the following tactics for large purchases: “We buy affordable cars and take budget vacations,” “I buy used cars,” “We save in advance for new cars and only buy cars with cash.”
The decision of which car to purchase or where to go on a family vacation is a personal one, and some physicians take great enjoyment and pride in driving a luxury vehicle or traveling to exotic locales. The key, experts say, is to factor the cost of that car into the rest of your budget, and make sure that it’s not preventing you from achieving other financial goals.
“I don’t like to judge or tell clients how they should spend their money,” said Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “Some people like cars, we have clients that have two planes, others want a second house or like to travel. Each person has their own interest where they may spend more relative to other people, but as long as they are meeting their savings targets, I encourage them to spend their money and enjoy what they enjoy most, guilt free.”
Mr. Snider suggests setting up a savings account separate from emergency or retirement accounts to set aside money if you have a goal for a large future purchase, such as a boat or a second home.
“That way, the funds don’t get commingled, and it’s explicitly clear whether or not the doctor is on target,” he says. “It also prevents them from treating their emergency savings account as an ATM machine.”
9. Start saving for college when the kids are little.
Respondents said the following: “We are buying less to save for the kids’ college education,” “We set up direct deposit into college and retirement savings plans,” “We have a 529 account for college savings.”
Helping pay for their children’s college education is an important financial goal for many physicians. The earlier that you start saving, the less you’ll have to save overall, thanks to compound interest. State 529 accounts are often a good place to start, especially if your state offers a tax incentive for doing so.
Mr. Snider recommends that physicians start small, with an initial investment of $1,000 per month and $100 per month contributions. Assuming a 7% rate of return and 17 years’ worth of savings, this would generate just over $42,000. (Note, current typical rates of return are less than 7%).
“Ideally, as other goals are accomplished and personal debt gets paid off, the doctor is ramping up their savings to have at least 50% of college expenses covered from their 529 college savings,” he says.
10. Watch out for the temptation of impulse purchases.
Physicians said the following: “Avoid impulse purchases,” “Avoid impulse shopping, make a list for the store and stick to it,” “Wait to buy things on sale.”
Nothing wrecks a budget like an impulse buy. More than half (54%) of U.S. shoppers have admitted to spending $100 or more on an impulse purchase. And 20% of shoppers have spent at least $1,000 on an impulse buy. Avoid buyers’ remorse by waiting a few days to make large purchase decisions or by limiting your unplanned spending to a certain dollar amount within your budget.
Online shopping may be a particular temptation. Dr. Tarugu, the Florida gastroenterologist, has focused on reducing those impulse buys as well, deleting all online shopping apps from his and his family’s phones.
“You won’t notice how much you have ordered online until it arrives at your doorstep,” he said. “It’s really important to keep it at bay.”
Mr. Keady, the TIAA chief planning strategist, recommended this tactic: Calculate the number of patients (or hours) you’d need to see in order to earn the cash required to make the purchase.
“Then, in a mindful way, figure out the amount of value derived from the purchase,” he said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood biomarkers could help predict when athletes recover from concussions
, according to a new study of collegiate athletes and recovery time. “Although preliminary, the current results highlight the potential role of biomarkers in tracking neuronal recovery, which may be associated with duration of [return to sport],” wrote Cassandra L. Pattinson, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., along with coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
To determine if three specific blood biomarkers – total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) – can help predict when athletes should return from sports-related concussions, a multicenter, prospective diagnostic study was launched and led by the Advanced Research Core (ARC) of the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium. The consortium is a joint effort of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense.
From among the CARE ARC database, researchers evaluated 127 eligible student athletes who had experienced a sports-related concussion, underwent clinical testing and blood collection before and after their injuries, and returned to their sports. Their average age was 18.9 years old, 76% were men, and 65% were White. Biomarker levels were measured from nonfasting blood samples via ultrasensitive single molecule array technology. As current NCAA guidelines indicate that most athletes will be asymptomatic roughly 2 weeks after a concussion, the study used 14 days as a cutoff period.
Among the 127 athletes, the median return-to-sport time was 14 days; 65 returned to their sports in less than 14 days while 62 returned to their sports in 14 days or more. According to the study’s linear mixed models, athletes with a return-to-sport time of 14 days or longer had significantly higher total tau levels at 24-48 hours post injury (mean difference –0.51 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval, –0.88 to –0.14; P = .008) and when symptoms had resolved (mean difference –0.71 pg/mL, 95% CI, –1.09 to –0.34; P < .001) compared with athletes with a return-to-sport time of less than 14 days. Athletes who returned in 14 days or more also had comparatively lower levels of GFAP postinjury than did those who returned in under 14 days (4.39 pg/mL versus 4.72 pg/mL; P = .04).
Preliminary steps toward an appropriate point-of-care test
“This particular study is one of several emerging studies on what these biomarkers look like,” Brian W. Hainline, MD, chief medical officer of the NCAA, said in an interview. “It’s all still very preliminary – you couldn’t make policy changes based on what we have – but the data is accumulating. Ultimately, we should be able to perform a multivariate analysis of all the different objective biomarkers, looking at repetitive head impact exposure, looking at imaging, looking at these blood-based biomarkers. Then you can say, ‘OK, what can we do? Can we actually predict recovery, who is likely or less likely to do well?’ ”
“It’s not realistic to be taking blood samples all the time,” said Dr. Hainline, who was not involved in the study. “Another goal, once we know which biomarkers are valuable, is to convert to a point-of-care test. You get a finger prick or even a salivary test and we get the result immediately; that’s the direction that all of this is heading. But first, we have to lay out the groundwork. We envision a day, in the not too distant future, where we can get this information much more quickly.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to standardize the time of biomarker collection and the fact that they analyzed a “relatively small number of athletes” who met their specific criteria. That said, they emphasized that their work is based on “the largest prospective sample of sports-related concussions in athletes to date” and that they “anticipate that we will be able to continue to gather a more representative sample” in the future to better generalize to the larger collegiate community.
The study was supported by the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, which was funded in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The authors disclosed receiving grants and travel reimbursements from – or working as advisers or consultants for – various organizations, college programs, and sports leagues.
SOURCE: Pattinson CL, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13191.
, according to a new study of collegiate athletes and recovery time. “Although preliminary, the current results highlight the potential role of biomarkers in tracking neuronal recovery, which may be associated with duration of [return to sport],” wrote Cassandra L. Pattinson, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., along with coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
To determine if three specific blood biomarkers – total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) – can help predict when athletes should return from sports-related concussions, a multicenter, prospective diagnostic study was launched and led by the Advanced Research Core (ARC) of the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium. The consortium is a joint effort of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense.
From among the CARE ARC database, researchers evaluated 127 eligible student athletes who had experienced a sports-related concussion, underwent clinical testing and blood collection before and after their injuries, and returned to their sports. Their average age was 18.9 years old, 76% were men, and 65% were White. Biomarker levels were measured from nonfasting blood samples via ultrasensitive single molecule array technology. As current NCAA guidelines indicate that most athletes will be asymptomatic roughly 2 weeks after a concussion, the study used 14 days as a cutoff period.
Among the 127 athletes, the median return-to-sport time was 14 days; 65 returned to their sports in less than 14 days while 62 returned to their sports in 14 days or more. According to the study’s linear mixed models, athletes with a return-to-sport time of 14 days or longer had significantly higher total tau levels at 24-48 hours post injury (mean difference –0.51 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval, –0.88 to –0.14; P = .008) and when symptoms had resolved (mean difference –0.71 pg/mL, 95% CI, –1.09 to –0.34; P < .001) compared with athletes with a return-to-sport time of less than 14 days. Athletes who returned in 14 days or more also had comparatively lower levels of GFAP postinjury than did those who returned in under 14 days (4.39 pg/mL versus 4.72 pg/mL; P = .04).
Preliminary steps toward an appropriate point-of-care test
“This particular study is one of several emerging studies on what these biomarkers look like,” Brian W. Hainline, MD, chief medical officer of the NCAA, said in an interview. “It’s all still very preliminary – you couldn’t make policy changes based on what we have – but the data is accumulating. Ultimately, we should be able to perform a multivariate analysis of all the different objective biomarkers, looking at repetitive head impact exposure, looking at imaging, looking at these blood-based biomarkers. Then you can say, ‘OK, what can we do? Can we actually predict recovery, who is likely or less likely to do well?’ ”
“It’s not realistic to be taking blood samples all the time,” said Dr. Hainline, who was not involved in the study. “Another goal, once we know which biomarkers are valuable, is to convert to a point-of-care test. You get a finger prick or even a salivary test and we get the result immediately; that’s the direction that all of this is heading. But first, we have to lay out the groundwork. We envision a day, in the not too distant future, where we can get this information much more quickly.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to standardize the time of biomarker collection and the fact that they analyzed a “relatively small number of athletes” who met their specific criteria. That said, they emphasized that their work is based on “the largest prospective sample of sports-related concussions in athletes to date” and that they “anticipate that we will be able to continue to gather a more representative sample” in the future to better generalize to the larger collegiate community.
The study was supported by the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, which was funded in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The authors disclosed receiving grants and travel reimbursements from – or working as advisers or consultants for – various organizations, college programs, and sports leagues.
SOURCE: Pattinson CL, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13191.
, according to a new study of collegiate athletes and recovery time. “Although preliminary, the current results highlight the potential role of biomarkers in tracking neuronal recovery, which may be associated with duration of [return to sport],” wrote Cassandra L. Pattinson, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., along with coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
To determine if three specific blood biomarkers – total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) – can help predict when athletes should return from sports-related concussions, a multicenter, prospective diagnostic study was launched and led by the Advanced Research Core (ARC) of the Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium. The consortium is a joint effort of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the U.S. Department of Defense.
From among the CARE ARC database, researchers evaluated 127 eligible student athletes who had experienced a sports-related concussion, underwent clinical testing and blood collection before and after their injuries, and returned to their sports. Their average age was 18.9 years old, 76% were men, and 65% were White. Biomarker levels were measured from nonfasting blood samples via ultrasensitive single molecule array technology. As current NCAA guidelines indicate that most athletes will be asymptomatic roughly 2 weeks after a concussion, the study used 14 days as a cutoff period.
Among the 127 athletes, the median return-to-sport time was 14 days; 65 returned to their sports in less than 14 days while 62 returned to their sports in 14 days or more. According to the study’s linear mixed models, athletes with a return-to-sport time of 14 days or longer had significantly higher total tau levels at 24-48 hours post injury (mean difference –0.51 pg/mL, 95% confidence interval, –0.88 to –0.14; P = .008) and when symptoms had resolved (mean difference –0.71 pg/mL, 95% CI, –1.09 to –0.34; P < .001) compared with athletes with a return-to-sport time of less than 14 days. Athletes who returned in 14 days or more also had comparatively lower levels of GFAP postinjury than did those who returned in under 14 days (4.39 pg/mL versus 4.72 pg/mL; P = .04).
Preliminary steps toward an appropriate point-of-care test
“This particular study is one of several emerging studies on what these biomarkers look like,” Brian W. Hainline, MD, chief medical officer of the NCAA, said in an interview. “It’s all still very preliminary – you couldn’t make policy changes based on what we have – but the data is accumulating. Ultimately, we should be able to perform a multivariate analysis of all the different objective biomarkers, looking at repetitive head impact exposure, looking at imaging, looking at these blood-based biomarkers. Then you can say, ‘OK, what can we do? Can we actually predict recovery, who is likely or less likely to do well?’ ”
“It’s not realistic to be taking blood samples all the time,” said Dr. Hainline, who was not involved in the study. “Another goal, once we know which biomarkers are valuable, is to convert to a point-of-care test. You get a finger prick or even a salivary test and we get the result immediately; that’s the direction that all of this is heading. But first, we have to lay out the groundwork. We envision a day, in the not too distant future, where we can get this information much more quickly.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to standardize the time of biomarker collection and the fact that they analyzed a “relatively small number of athletes” who met their specific criteria. That said, they emphasized that their work is based on “the largest prospective sample of sports-related concussions in athletes to date” and that they “anticipate that we will be able to continue to gather a more representative sample” in the future to better generalize to the larger collegiate community.
The study was supported by the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, which was funded in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The authors disclosed receiving grants and travel reimbursements from – or working as advisers or consultants for – various organizations, college programs, and sports leagues.
SOURCE: Pattinson CL, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13191.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
New schizophrenia treatment guideline released
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has released a new evidence-based practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The guideline focuses on assessment and treatment planning, which are integral to patient-centered care, and includes recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy, with particular focus on clozapine, as well as previously recommended and new psychosocial interventions.
“Our intention was to make recommendations to treat the whole person and take into account their family and other significant people in their lives,” George Keepers, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.
‘State-of-the-art methodology’
Dr. Keepers, professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, explained the rigorous process that informs the current guideline, which was “based not solely on expert consensus but was preceded by an evidence-based review of the literature that was then discussed, digested, and distilled into specific recommendations.”
Many current recommendations are “similar to previous recommendations, but there are a few important differences,” he said.
Two experts in schizophrenia who were not involved in guideline authorship praised it for its usefulness and methodology.
Philip D. Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, said in an interview that the guideline “clarified the typical treatment algorithm from first episode to treatment resistance [which is] very clearly laid out for the first time.”
Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the guideline “followed state-of-the-art methodology.”
First steps
The guideline recommends beginning with assessment of the patient and determination of the treatment plan.
Patients should be “treated with an antipsychotic medication and monitored for effectiveness and side effects.” Even after the patient’s symptoms have improved, antipsychotic treatment should continue.
For patients whose symptoms have improved, treatment should continue with the same antipsychotic and should not be switched.
“The problem we’re addressing in this recommendation is that patients are often treated with an effective medication and then forced, by circumstances or their insurance company, to switch to another that may not be effective for them, resulting in unnecessary relapses of the illness,” said Dr. Keepers.
“ and do what’s in the best interest of the patient,” he said.
“The guideline called out that antipsychotics that are effective and tolerated should be continued, without specifying a duration of treatment, thereby indicating indirectly that there is no clear end of the recommendation for ongoing maintenance treatment in individuals with schizophrenia,” said Dr. Correll.
Clozapine underutilized
The guideline highlights the role of clozapine and recommends its use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and those at risk for suicide. Clozapine is also recommended for patients at “substantial” risk for aggressive behavior, regardless of other treatments.
“Clozapine is underutilized for treatment of schizophrenia in the U.S. and a number of other countries, but it is a really important treatment for patients who don’t respond to other antipsychotic agents,” said Dr. Keepers.
“With this recommendation, we hope that more patients will wind up receiving the medication and benefiting from it,” he added.
In addition, patients should receive treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic “if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence” (level of evidence, 2B).
The guideline authors “are recommending long-acting injectable medications for people who want them, not just people with poor prior adherence, which is a critical step,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the division of psychology at the University of Miami.
Managing antipsychotic side effects
The guideline offers recommendations for patients experiencing antipsychotic-induced side effects.
VMAT2s, which represent a “class of drugs that have become available since the last schizophrenia guidelines, are effective in tardive dyskinesia. It is important that patients with tardive dyskinesia have access to these drugs because they do work,” Dr. Keepers said.
Adequate funding needed
Recommended psychosocial interventions include treatment in a specialty care program for patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing a first episode of psychosis, use of cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis, psychoeducation, and supported employment services (2B).
“We reviewed very good data showing that patients who receive these services are more likely to be able to be employed and less likely to be rehospitalized or have a relapse,” Dr. Keepers observed.
In addition, patients with schizophrenia should receive assertive community treatment interventions if there is a “history of poor engagement with services leading to frequent relapse or social disruption.”
Family interventions are recommended for patients who have ongoing contact with their families (2B), and patients should also receive interventions “aimed at developing self-management skills and enhancing person-oriented recovery.” They should receive cognitive remediation, social skills training, and supportive psychotherapy.
Dr. Keepers pointed to “major barriers” to providing some of these psychosocial treatments. “They are beyond the scope of someone in an individual private practice situation, so they need to be delivered within the context of treatment programs that are either publicly or privately based,” he said.
“Psychiatrists can and do work closely with community and mental health centers, psychologists, and social workers who can provide these kinds of treatments,” but “many [treatments] require specialized skills and training before they can be offered, and there is a shortage of personnel to deliver them,” he noted.
“Both the national and state governments have not provided adequate funding for treatment of individuals with this condition [schizophrenia],” he added.
Dr. Keepers reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll disclosed ties to Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Asymptomatic children may transmit COVID-19 in communities
About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.
Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.
To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.
“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that the researchers noted.
Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.
A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).
Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.
For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.
The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.
However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.
“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.
The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”
Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”
However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).
“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”
The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.
“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”
“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”
Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”
“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”
As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”
“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”
- Why do children have milder illness?
- Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
- Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
- Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
- Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
- Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?
“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”
The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.
About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.
Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.
To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.
“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that the researchers noted.
Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.
A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).
Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.
For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.
The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.
However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.
“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.
The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”
Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”
However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).
“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”
The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.
“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”
“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”
Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”
“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”
As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”
“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”
- Why do children have milder illness?
- Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
- Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
- Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
- Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
- Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?
“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”
The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.
About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.
Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.
To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.
“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that the researchers noted.
Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.
A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).
Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.
For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.
The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.
However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.
“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.
The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”
Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”
However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).
“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”
The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.
“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”
“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”
Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”
“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”
As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”
“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”
- Why do children have milder illness?
- Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
- Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
- Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
- Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
- Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?
“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”
The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Sleep disorders may be undetected precursors for cardiometabolic disease in U.S. Latinos
Sleep disorders may be silent precursors of cardiometabolic disease among U.S. Latinos, said authors of a newly published study.
Xiaoyu Li, ScD, and Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and coauthors conducted a study of people who self-identified as Latino, who had baseline sleeping disorders, and who developed hypertension and diabetes over time. The study was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The findings suggested that sleep disorders preceded the development of hypertension and diabetes. Examining records from a major multiyear federal project, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, Dr. Li, Dr. Redline, and coauthors found sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) was associated with a 1.54 higher adjusted odds of incident hypertension (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.00) and 1.33 higher odds of incident diabetes (95% CI, 1.05-1.67), compared with no SDB. Insomnia was associated with incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69), but not diabetes. The association between insomnia and incident hypertension was stronger among men than women, they reported.
“We now need large-scale rigorous trials to evaluate the impact of early treatment of sleep disordered breathing and insomnia on preventing the development of hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Redline said in an interview. “Clinicians should consider screening their patients at risk for hypertension and diabetes for both sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.”
Implications for public health strategies
The study results may have implications for health strategies and policies aimed at addressing health differentials among ethnic and economic groups in the United States.
Suboptimal sleep health may be an important fundamental but understudied contributor to health disparities, Chandra L. Jackson, PhD, MS, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Jackson is the lead author for a report published in August on a 2018 National Institutes of Health workshop regarding the importance of studying sleep health disparities (Sleep 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa037). The NIH workshop emphasized how little research has been done on the prevalence, incidence, morbidity, or mortality of sleep deficiencies of racial and ethnic minority populations, even though members of these groups are generally more likely to experience sleep disorders. The report urged “a nuanced integration between health disparity causal pathways and sleep and circadian-related mechanisms” tailored for these groups, with attention paid to sociocultural context.
Dr. Jackson said the study by Dr. Li and colleagues fits nicely with the strategies recommended in this report. She added: “Prospective design is particularly important for establishing temporality or that the SDB and insomnia symptoms occurred before the outcomes of hypertension and diabetes.”
In commenting on the Xi/Redline paper, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study and noted that one of the challenges in sleep research is the long time period over which the effects of disordered breathing become clear, he said.
“Things don’t happen immediately. It takes months, years for the effects to develop,” Dr. Sundar said. “To try to piece together the relationships, you need very well planned studies.”
Study design: Participants and exclusions
Latinos currently make up 17.8%, or 57.5 million, of the U.S. population, and this group is expected to double within the next 4 decades, the investigators wrote. A few prior studies on the roles of sleep disorders in the cardiometabolic health of Latinos, though suggestive, were limited by cross-sectional designs, relatively small samples, and underrepresentation of various Latino heritage groups.
The investigators on this new study worked with data from the federal Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) in which more than 16,000 people participated.
This multiyear federal study drew people who self-identified with different heritage groups, including Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Central American, South American, and Puerto Rican. Participants initially aged 18-74 years underwent a first round of exams and assessments between 2008 and 2011 to determine what risk factors they had at the start of the study. In the second phase, which took place from 2013 to 2018, participants had a second set of exams. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the HCHS/SOL.
The investigators initially had a potential data pool of 11,623 participants in the HCHS/SOL. About 1 of 8 in this group, or 1,424 participants (12.3%), did not undergo a sleep study or did not have sufficient sleep data for analyses. Another 93 (0.8%) participants were excluded for missing data on covariates.
For incident hypertension analyses, participants who had prevalent hypertension at the first screening in the HCHS/SOL (n = 3,139) or had missing data on hypertension (n = 2) were excluded. That resulted in an analytic sample of 6,965 for hypertension questions.
For incident diabetes analyses, participants who had prevalent diabetes at the first screening (n = 2,062) or had missing data on diabetes (n = 21) were excluded, yielding an analytic sample of 8,023.
Incident hypertension was defined as participants not having hypertension at baseline and having hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or receiving antihypertensive medication within 4 weeks, at the second round of screening.
Cardiometabolic disease definitions
The researchers did not discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They used the American Diabetes Association definition as a fasting plasma glucose 126 mg/dL or greater, 2-hour, postload plasma glucose 200 mg/dL or greater, or hemoglobin A1c 6.5% or greater, with an additional criterion on self-reported use of antidiabetic medication within 4 weeks before the visit.
In line with previous research, the investigators controlled for potential confounders measured at baseline including sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and adiposity, which are considered important risk factors for both sleep disorders and incident metabolic diseases. These factors include education level, age, gender, and body mass index and whether participants had ever been smokers or users of alcohol.
Study limitations
Limitations of the study include use of a home sleep apnea test device that did not allow evaluation of arousal or sleep architecture. The researchers said this may have led to an underestimation of disease severity both due to overestimation of sleep time and underrecognition of hypopneas unassociated with desaturation. In addition, prior research has suggested that minority populations might underreport sleep disturbances, possibly “due to social desirability (a tendency not to encode a negative event), stress, stereotype threat, acculturation, attitudes, etc.” The participants were recruited mostly from urban areas, and the results might not be generalized to rural populations. In addition, 41% of study participants were of Mexican heritage, compared with 63% of the Hispanic population being of Mexican heritage in the United States.
Another researcher in the field of health disparities, Julia Roncoroni, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, also noted this slight underrepresentation of Hispanics of Mexican origin and an overrepresentation of urban individuals in the HCHS/SOL.
“However, using data from HCHS/SOL, which is the largest multicenter epidemiological study of cardiovascular risk factors and sleep traits in U.S. Hispanics/Latinx, allows researchers to answer a high-impact question that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time consuming,” wrote Dr. Roncoroni.
Conclusions
The study offers “the first prospective evidence on the associations between SDB and insomnia with incident hypertension and diabetes in US Hispanics/Latinos.” The investigators concluded: “Given the fact that sleep disorders are largely undiagnosed and undertreated, they might represent modifiable targets for disease prevention and reduction among US Hispanics/Latinos. Culturally informed interventions focusing on detecting and treating sleep disorders might improve cardiometabolic health among US Hispanics/Latinos.”
Dr. Redline was partially supported by NIH grant R35 HL135818. This study drew from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, which has been supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
SOURCE: Li X et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2330OC.
Sleep disorders may be silent precursors of cardiometabolic disease among U.S. Latinos, said authors of a newly published study.
Xiaoyu Li, ScD, and Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and coauthors conducted a study of people who self-identified as Latino, who had baseline sleeping disorders, and who developed hypertension and diabetes over time. The study was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The findings suggested that sleep disorders preceded the development of hypertension and diabetes. Examining records from a major multiyear federal project, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, Dr. Li, Dr. Redline, and coauthors found sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) was associated with a 1.54 higher adjusted odds of incident hypertension (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.00) and 1.33 higher odds of incident diabetes (95% CI, 1.05-1.67), compared with no SDB. Insomnia was associated with incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69), but not diabetes. The association between insomnia and incident hypertension was stronger among men than women, they reported.
“We now need large-scale rigorous trials to evaluate the impact of early treatment of sleep disordered breathing and insomnia on preventing the development of hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Redline said in an interview. “Clinicians should consider screening their patients at risk for hypertension and diabetes for both sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.”
Implications for public health strategies
The study results may have implications for health strategies and policies aimed at addressing health differentials among ethnic and economic groups in the United States.
Suboptimal sleep health may be an important fundamental but understudied contributor to health disparities, Chandra L. Jackson, PhD, MS, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Jackson is the lead author for a report published in August on a 2018 National Institutes of Health workshop regarding the importance of studying sleep health disparities (Sleep 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa037). The NIH workshop emphasized how little research has been done on the prevalence, incidence, morbidity, or mortality of sleep deficiencies of racial and ethnic minority populations, even though members of these groups are generally more likely to experience sleep disorders. The report urged “a nuanced integration between health disparity causal pathways and sleep and circadian-related mechanisms” tailored for these groups, with attention paid to sociocultural context.
Dr. Jackson said the study by Dr. Li and colleagues fits nicely with the strategies recommended in this report. She added: “Prospective design is particularly important for establishing temporality or that the SDB and insomnia symptoms occurred before the outcomes of hypertension and diabetes.”
In commenting on the Xi/Redline paper, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study and noted that one of the challenges in sleep research is the long time period over which the effects of disordered breathing become clear, he said.
“Things don’t happen immediately. It takes months, years for the effects to develop,” Dr. Sundar said. “To try to piece together the relationships, you need very well planned studies.”
Study design: Participants and exclusions
Latinos currently make up 17.8%, or 57.5 million, of the U.S. population, and this group is expected to double within the next 4 decades, the investigators wrote. A few prior studies on the roles of sleep disorders in the cardiometabolic health of Latinos, though suggestive, were limited by cross-sectional designs, relatively small samples, and underrepresentation of various Latino heritage groups.
The investigators on this new study worked with data from the federal Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) in which more than 16,000 people participated.
This multiyear federal study drew people who self-identified with different heritage groups, including Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Central American, South American, and Puerto Rican. Participants initially aged 18-74 years underwent a first round of exams and assessments between 2008 and 2011 to determine what risk factors they had at the start of the study. In the second phase, which took place from 2013 to 2018, participants had a second set of exams. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the HCHS/SOL.
The investigators initially had a potential data pool of 11,623 participants in the HCHS/SOL. About 1 of 8 in this group, or 1,424 participants (12.3%), did not undergo a sleep study or did not have sufficient sleep data for analyses. Another 93 (0.8%) participants were excluded for missing data on covariates.
For incident hypertension analyses, participants who had prevalent hypertension at the first screening in the HCHS/SOL (n = 3,139) or had missing data on hypertension (n = 2) were excluded. That resulted in an analytic sample of 6,965 for hypertension questions.
For incident diabetes analyses, participants who had prevalent diabetes at the first screening (n = 2,062) or had missing data on diabetes (n = 21) were excluded, yielding an analytic sample of 8,023.
Incident hypertension was defined as participants not having hypertension at baseline and having hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or receiving antihypertensive medication within 4 weeks, at the second round of screening.
Cardiometabolic disease definitions
The researchers did not discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They used the American Diabetes Association definition as a fasting plasma glucose 126 mg/dL or greater, 2-hour, postload plasma glucose 200 mg/dL or greater, or hemoglobin A1c 6.5% or greater, with an additional criterion on self-reported use of antidiabetic medication within 4 weeks before the visit.
In line with previous research, the investigators controlled for potential confounders measured at baseline including sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and adiposity, which are considered important risk factors for both sleep disorders and incident metabolic diseases. These factors include education level, age, gender, and body mass index and whether participants had ever been smokers or users of alcohol.
Study limitations
Limitations of the study include use of a home sleep apnea test device that did not allow evaluation of arousal or sleep architecture. The researchers said this may have led to an underestimation of disease severity both due to overestimation of sleep time and underrecognition of hypopneas unassociated with desaturation. In addition, prior research has suggested that minority populations might underreport sleep disturbances, possibly “due to social desirability (a tendency not to encode a negative event), stress, stereotype threat, acculturation, attitudes, etc.” The participants were recruited mostly from urban areas, and the results might not be generalized to rural populations. In addition, 41% of study participants were of Mexican heritage, compared with 63% of the Hispanic population being of Mexican heritage in the United States.
Another researcher in the field of health disparities, Julia Roncoroni, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, also noted this slight underrepresentation of Hispanics of Mexican origin and an overrepresentation of urban individuals in the HCHS/SOL.
“However, using data from HCHS/SOL, which is the largest multicenter epidemiological study of cardiovascular risk factors and sleep traits in U.S. Hispanics/Latinx, allows researchers to answer a high-impact question that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time consuming,” wrote Dr. Roncoroni.
Conclusions
The study offers “the first prospective evidence on the associations between SDB and insomnia with incident hypertension and diabetes in US Hispanics/Latinos.” The investigators concluded: “Given the fact that sleep disorders are largely undiagnosed and undertreated, they might represent modifiable targets for disease prevention and reduction among US Hispanics/Latinos. Culturally informed interventions focusing on detecting and treating sleep disorders might improve cardiometabolic health among US Hispanics/Latinos.”
Dr. Redline was partially supported by NIH grant R35 HL135818. This study drew from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, which has been supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
SOURCE: Li X et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2330OC.
Sleep disorders may be silent precursors of cardiometabolic disease among U.S. Latinos, said authors of a newly published study.
Xiaoyu Li, ScD, and Susan Redline, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and coauthors conducted a study of people who self-identified as Latino, who had baseline sleeping disorders, and who developed hypertension and diabetes over time. The study was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The findings suggested that sleep disorders preceded the development of hypertension and diabetes. Examining records from a major multiyear federal project, the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, Dr. Li, Dr. Redline, and coauthors found sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) was associated with a 1.54 higher adjusted odds of incident hypertension (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.00) and 1.33 higher odds of incident diabetes (95% CI, 1.05-1.67), compared with no SDB. Insomnia was associated with incident hypertension (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.69), but not diabetes. The association between insomnia and incident hypertension was stronger among men than women, they reported.
“We now need large-scale rigorous trials to evaluate the impact of early treatment of sleep disordered breathing and insomnia on preventing the development of hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Redline said in an interview. “Clinicians should consider screening their patients at risk for hypertension and diabetes for both sleep-disordered breathing and insomnia.”
Implications for public health strategies
The study results may have implications for health strategies and policies aimed at addressing health differentials among ethnic and economic groups in the United States.
Suboptimal sleep health may be an important fundamental but understudied contributor to health disparities, Chandra L. Jackson, PhD, MS, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Jackson is the lead author for a report published in August on a 2018 National Institutes of Health workshop regarding the importance of studying sleep health disparities (Sleep 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa037). The NIH workshop emphasized how little research has been done on the prevalence, incidence, morbidity, or mortality of sleep deficiencies of racial and ethnic minority populations, even though members of these groups are generally more likely to experience sleep disorders. The report urged “a nuanced integration between health disparity causal pathways and sleep and circadian-related mechanisms” tailored for these groups, with attention paid to sociocultural context.
Dr. Jackson said the study by Dr. Li and colleagues fits nicely with the strategies recommended in this report. She added: “Prospective design is particularly important for establishing temporality or that the SDB and insomnia symptoms occurred before the outcomes of hypertension and diabetes.”
In commenting on the Xi/Redline paper, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study and noted that one of the challenges in sleep research is the long time period over which the effects of disordered breathing become clear, he said.
“Things don’t happen immediately. It takes months, years for the effects to develop,” Dr. Sundar said. “To try to piece together the relationships, you need very well planned studies.”
Study design: Participants and exclusions
Latinos currently make up 17.8%, or 57.5 million, of the U.S. population, and this group is expected to double within the next 4 decades, the investigators wrote. A few prior studies on the roles of sleep disorders in the cardiometabolic health of Latinos, though suggestive, were limited by cross-sectional designs, relatively small samples, and underrepresentation of various Latino heritage groups.
The investigators on this new study worked with data from the federal Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) in which more than 16,000 people participated.
This multiyear federal study drew people who self-identified with different heritage groups, including Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Central American, South American, and Puerto Rican. Participants initially aged 18-74 years underwent a first round of exams and assessments between 2008 and 2011 to determine what risk factors they had at the start of the study. In the second phase, which took place from 2013 to 2018, participants had a second set of exams. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the HCHS/SOL.
The investigators initially had a potential data pool of 11,623 participants in the HCHS/SOL. About 1 of 8 in this group, or 1,424 participants (12.3%), did not undergo a sleep study or did not have sufficient sleep data for analyses. Another 93 (0.8%) participants were excluded for missing data on covariates.
For incident hypertension analyses, participants who had prevalent hypertension at the first screening in the HCHS/SOL (n = 3,139) or had missing data on hypertension (n = 2) were excluded. That resulted in an analytic sample of 6,965 for hypertension questions.
For incident diabetes analyses, participants who had prevalent diabetes at the first screening (n = 2,062) or had missing data on diabetes (n = 21) were excluded, yielding an analytic sample of 8,023.
Incident hypertension was defined as participants not having hypertension at baseline and having hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or receiving antihypertensive medication within 4 weeks, at the second round of screening.
Cardiometabolic disease definitions
The researchers did not discriminate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They used the American Diabetes Association definition as a fasting plasma glucose 126 mg/dL or greater, 2-hour, postload plasma glucose 200 mg/dL or greater, or hemoglobin A1c 6.5% or greater, with an additional criterion on self-reported use of antidiabetic medication within 4 weeks before the visit.
In line with previous research, the investigators controlled for potential confounders measured at baseline including sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and adiposity, which are considered important risk factors for both sleep disorders and incident metabolic diseases. These factors include education level, age, gender, and body mass index and whether participants had ever been smokers or users of alcohol.
Study limitations
Limitations of the study include use of a home sleep apnea test device that did not allow evaluation of arousal or sleep architecture. The researchers said this may have led to an underestimation of disease severity both due to overestimation of sleep time and underrecognition of hypopneas unassociated with desaturation. In addition, prior research has suggested that minority populations might underreport sleep disturbances, possibly “due to social desirability (a tendency not to encode a negative event), stress, stereotype threat, acculturation, attitudes, etc.” The participants were recruited mostly from urban areas, and the results might not be generalized to rural populations. In addition, 41% of study participants were of Mexican heritage, compared with 63% of the Hispanic population being of Mexican heritage in the United States.
Another researcher in the field of health disparities, Julia Roncoroni, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Denver, also noted this slight underrepresentation of Hispanics of Mexican origin and an overrepresentation of urban individuals in the HCHS/SOL.
“However, using data from HCHS/SOL, which is the largest multicenter epidemiological study of cardiovascular risk factors and sleep traits in U.S. Hispanics/Latinx, allows researchers to answer a high-impact question that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time consuming,” wrote Dr. Roncoroni.
Conclusions
The study offers “the first prospective evidence on the associations between SDB and insomnia with incident hypertension and diabetes in US Hispanics/Latinos.” The investigators concluded: “Given the fact that sleep disorders are largely undiagnosed and undertreated, they might represent modifiable targets for disease prevention and reduction among US Hispanics/Latinos. Culturally informed interventions focusing on detecting and treating sleep disorders might improve cardiometabolic health among US Hispanics/Latinos.”
Dr. Redline was partially supported by NIH grant R35 HL135818. This study drew from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, which has been supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
SOURCE: Li X et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2330OC.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Statins linked to reduced mortality in COVID-19
Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.
In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).
Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.
The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
Moderate- to good-quality data
The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.
The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.
In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).
Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.
“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.
Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.
However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.
Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”
Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
Nonetheless, questions remain
While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.
“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.
“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.
Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU.
“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.
“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.
In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).
Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.
The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
Moderate- to good-quality data
The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.
The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.
In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).
Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.
“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.
Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.
However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.
Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”
Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
Nonetheless, questions remain
While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.
“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.
“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.
Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU.
“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.
“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.
In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).
Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.
The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
Moderate- to good-quality data
The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.
The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.
In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).
Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.
“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.
Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.
However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.
Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”
Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
Nonetheless, questions remain
While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.
“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.
“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.
Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU.
“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.
“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
High mortality rates reported in large COVID-19 study
Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.
History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.
One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative.
The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
COVID-19 and comorbidities
“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.
Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.
With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.
In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.
Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.
“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.
Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.
This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
Key findings
A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.
Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).
“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.
The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.
Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).
When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
Mechanical ventilation and mortality
Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.
Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.
People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.
Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
COVID-19 therapies?
Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.
The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.
“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.
Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.
A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”
The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.
“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
Some limitations
“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.
Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.
On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.”
Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.
History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.
One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative.
The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
COVID-19 and comorbidities
“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.
Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.
With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.
In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.
Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.
“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.
Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.
This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
Key findings
A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.
Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).
“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.
The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.
Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).
When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
Mechanical ventilation and mortality
Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.
Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.
People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.
Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
COVID-19 therapies?
Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.
The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.
“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.
Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.
A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”
The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.
“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
Some limitations
“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.
Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.
On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.”
Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Factors including older age and certain comorbidities have been linked to more serious COVID-19 outcomes in previous research, and now a large dataset collected from hundreds of hospitals nationwide provides more detailed data regarding risk for mechanical ventilation and death.
History of pulmonary disease or smoking, interestingly, were not.
One expert urges caution when interpreting the results, however. Although the study found a number of risk factors for ventilation and mortality, she says the dataset lacks information on race and disease severity, and the sample may not be nationally representative.
The investigators hope their level of granularity will further assist researchers searching for effective treatments and clinicians seeking to triage patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study was published online August 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
COVID-19 and comorbidities
“What I found most illuminating was this whole concept of comorbid conditions. This provides suggestive data about who we need to worry about most and who we may need to worry about less,” study author Robert S. Brown Jr, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.
Comorbid conditions included hypertension in 47% of patients, diabetes in 28%, and cardiovascular disease in 19%. Another 16% were obese and 12% had chronic kidney disease. People with comorbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation compared to those without a history of these conditions in an adjusted, multivariable logistic analysis.
With the exception of obesity, the same factors were associated with risk for death during hospitalization.
In contrast, hypertension, history of smoking, and history of pulmonary disease were associated with a lower risk of needing mechanical ventilation and/or lower risk for mortality.
Furthermore, people with liver disease, gastrointestinal diseases, and even autoimmune diseases – which are likely associated with immunosuppression – “are not at that much of an increased risk that we noticed it in our data,” Brown said.
“As I tell many of my patients who have mild liver disease, for example, I would rather have mild liver disease and be on immunosuppressant therapy than be an older, obese male,” he added.
Assessing data for people in 38 U.S. states, and not limiting outcomes to patients in a particular COVID-19 hot spot, was a unique aspect of the research, said Brown, clinical chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Brown, lead author Michael W. Fried, MD, from TARGET PharmaSolutions in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues studied adults from a commercially available Target Real-World Evidence (RWE) dataset of nearly 70,000 patients. They examined hospital chargemaster data and ICD-10 codes for COVID-19 inpatients between February 15 and April 20.
This population tended to be older, with 60% older than 60 years. A little more than half of participants, 53%, were men.
Key findings
A total of 21% of patients died after a median hospital length of stay of 8 days.
Older patients were significantly more likely to die, particularly those older than 60 years (P < .0001).
“This confirms some of the things we know about age and its impact on outcome,” Brown said.
The risk for mortality among patients older than 60 years was 7.2 times that of patients between 18 and 40 years in an adjusted multivariate analysis. The risk for death for those between 41 and 60 years of age was lower (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), compared with the youngest cohort.
Men were more likely to die than women (OR, 1.5).
When asked if he was surprised by the high mortality rates, Brown said, “Having worked here in New York? No, I was not.”
Mechanical ventilation and mortality
Male sex, age older than 40 years, obesity, and presence of cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease were risk factors for mechanical ventilation.
Among the nearly 2,000 hospitalized adults requiring mechanical ventilation in the current report, only 27% were discharged alive. “The outcomes of people who are mechanically ventilated are really quite sobering,” Brown said.
People who ever required mechanical ventilation were 32 times more likely to die compared with others whose highest level of oxygenation was low-flow, high-flow, or no-oxygen therapy in an analysis that controlled for demographics and comorbidities.
Furthermore, patients placed on mechanical ventilation earlier – within 24 hours of admission – tended to experience better outcomes.
COVID-19 therapies?
Brown and colleagues also evaluated outcomes in patients who were taking either remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine. A total of 48 people were treated with remdesivir.
The four individuals receiving remdesivir who died were among 11 who were taking remdesivir and also on mechanical ventilation.
“The data for remdesivir is very encouraging,” Brown said.
Many more participants were treated with hydroxychloroquine, more than 4,200 or 36% of the total study population.
A higher proportion of people treated with hydroxychloroquine received mechanical ventilation, at 25%, versus 12% not treated with hydroxychloroquine.
The unadjusted mortality rate was also higher among those treated with the agent, at 25%, compared to 20% not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
The data with hydroxychloroquine can lead to two conclusions, Brown said: “One, it doesn’t work. Or two, it doesn’t work in the way that we use it.”
The researchers cautioned that their hydroxychloroquine findings must be interpreted carefully because those treated with the agent were also more likely to have comorbidities and greater COVID-19 disease severity.
“This study greatly contributes to understanding the natural course of COVID-19 infection by describing characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the US,” the investigators note. “It identified categories of patients at greatest risk for poor outcomes, which should be used to prioritize prevention and treatment strategies in the future.”
Some limitations
“The findings that patients with hypertension and who were smokers had lower ventilation rates, and patients with hypertension, pulmonary disease, who were smokers had lower mortality risks was very surprising,” Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.
Although the study identified multiple risk factors for ventilation and mortality, “unfortunately the dataset did not have race available or disease severity,” said Ponce, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
“These omitted variables could have a considerable effect on the significance, magnitude, and direction of point estimates provided, so I would be cautious in interpreting the results as a picture of a nationally representative sample,” she said.
On a positive note, the study and dataset could illuminate the utility of medications used to treat COVID-19, Ponce said. In addition, as the authors note, “the data will expand over time.”
Brown has reported receiving grants and consulting for Gilead. Ponce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Assessing the Value Proposition of NUWIQ® in the Hemophilia A Market: An Illustrative Model in Cost Avoidance
Click here to read the supplement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the many advances and introduction of new therapies for treating people with hemophilia A, this paper posits an illustrative model for assessing the value proposition of selected factor VIII (FVIII) replacement concentrates. Five marketed recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products are compared across 4 major areas of hemophilia management: prophylaxis (preventive treatment), breakthrough bleed resolution, on-demand treatment, and inhibitor management. The 5-product landscape is set in a hypothetical health plan with 525 hemophilia A patients. Analysis inputs included are product dose, dosing frequencies, average bleed rates, product price, and high-titer inhibitor development rates. After comparing and contrasting the 5 selected rFVIII replacement concentrates across the 4 major areas, we concluded that cost-avoidance modeling in hemophilia A is worthwhile, possible, and particularly helpful in assessing the value proposition of rFVIII therapies. In our evaluation, we observed that NUWIQ® is a cost-effective rFVIII therapy for treating hemophilia A patients.
Click here to read the supplement.
Click here to read the supplement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the many advances and introduction of new therapies for treating people with hemophilia A, this paper posits an illustrative model for assessing the value proposition of selected factor VIII (FVIII) replacement concentrates. Five marketed recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products are compared across 4 major areas of hemophilia management: prophylaxis (preventive treatment), breakthrough bleed resolution, on-demand treatment, and inhibitor management. The 5-product landscape is set in a hypothetical health plan with 525 hemophilia A patients. Analysis inputs included are product dose, dosing frequencies, average bleed rates, product price, and high-titer inhibitor development rates. After comparing and contrasting the 5 selected rFVIII replacement concentrates across the 4 major areas, we concluded that cost-avoidance modeling in hemophilia A is worthwhile, possible, and particularly helpful in assessing the value proposition of rFVIII therapies. In our evaluation, we observed that NUWIQ® is a cost-effective rFVIII therapy for treating hemophilia A patients.
Click here to read the supplement.
Click here to read the supplement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the many advances and introduction of new therapies for treating people with hemophilia A, this paper posits an illustrative model for assessing the value proposition of selected factor VIII (FVIII) replacement concentrates. Five marketed recombinant FVIII (rFVIII) products are compared across 4 major areas of hemophilia management: prophylaxis (preventive treatment), breakthrough bleed resolution, on-demand treatment, and inhibitor management. The 5-product landscape is set in a hypothetical health plan with 525 hemophilia A patients. Analysis inputs included are product dose, dosing frequencies, average bleed rates, product price, and high-titer inhibitor development rates. After comparing and contrasting the 5 selected rFVIII replacement concentrates across the 4 major areas, we concluded that cost-avoidance modeling in hemophilia A is worthwhile, possible, and particularly helpful in assessing the value proposition of rFVIII therapies. In our evaluation, we observed that NUWIQ® is a cost-effective rFVIII therapy for treating hemophilia A patients.
Click here to read the supplement.
REALITY trial supports restrictive transfusion in anemic MI
in the landmark REALITY trial.
Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.
Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.
“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.
The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.
In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.
The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.
Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.
Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.
“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.
Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.
“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.
He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.
“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.
He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”
Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.
The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”
During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.
“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.
Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.
The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
in the landmark REALITY trial.
Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.
Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.
“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.
The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.
In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.
The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.
Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.
Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.
“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.
Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.
“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.
He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.
“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.
He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”
Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.
The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”
During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.
“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.
Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.
The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
in the landmark REALITY trial.
Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.
Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.
“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.
The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.
In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.
The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.
Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.
Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.
“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.
Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.
“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.
He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.
“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.
He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”
Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.
The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”
During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.
“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.
Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.
The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020