Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

One of a smartphone’s simplest features has become a powerful communication and coordination tool for metro Seattle’s critical care departments.

Anne B. Lipke, MD, is the medical director of Swedish Medical Center’s Issaquah, Wash., campus in suburban Seattle. In an audio interview, Dr. Lipke explains how texting has become a fast, effective component of Seattle’s critical care response to COVID-19. And she offers lessons for physicians across the country who may soon be seeing situations similar to Seattle’s.

[email protected]

One of a smartphone’s simplest features has become a powerful communication and coordination tool for metro Seattle’s critical care departments.

Anne B. Lipke, MD, is the medical director of Swedish Medical Center’s Issaquah, Wash., campus in suburban Seattle. In an audio interview, Dr. Lipke explains how texting has become a fast, effective component of Seattle’s critical care response to COVID-19. And she offers lessons for physicians across the country who may soon be seeing situations similar to Seattle’s.

[email protected]

One of a smartphone’s simplest features has become a powerful communication and coordination tool for metro Seattle’s critical care departments.

Anne B. Lipke, MD, is the medical director of Swedish Medical Center’s Issaquah, Wash., campus in suburban Seattle. In an audio interview, Dr. Lipke explains how texting has become a fast, effective component of Seattle’s critical care response to COVID-19. And she offers lessons for physicians across the country who may soon be seeing situations similar to Seattle’s.

[email protected]

For almost a quarter century, Julie Powers, a 48-year-old non-profit professional from Maryland, has been taking the same medication for her lupus — and until recently, she never worried that her supply would run out. Now she’s terrified that she might lose access to a drug that prevents her immune system from attacking her heart, lungs, and skin. She describes a feeling akin to being underwater, near drowning: “That’s what my life would be like,” she said. “I’ll suffocate.”

Powers’ concerns began roughly a week ago when she learned that her lupus drug, hydroxychloroquine (hi-DROCK-see-KLORA-quin), may be helpful in the treatment of Covid-19, the illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus now racing across the planet. The medication was already being used around world to treat Covid-19 patients, but evidence of its effectiveness was largely anecdotal. Then, on March 16, a renowned infectious disease specialist, Didier Raoult, announced the results of a small clinical trial in France showing that patients receiving a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the common antibiotic azithromycin had notably lower levels of the virus in their bloodstream than those who did not receive the medication.

In the last week, this once obscure drug has been thrust into the national spotlight with everyone from doctors, to laypeople, to the U.S. president weighing in. The attention has so dramatically driven up demand that pharmacists are reporting depleted stocks of the drug, leaving many of the roughly 1.5 million lupus patients across the country unable to get their prescriptions filled. They now face an uncertain future as the public clings to one of the first signs of hope to appear since the coronavirus began sweeping across the U.S.

But scientists and physicians caution that this hope is based on studies that have been conducted outside of traditional scientific timelines. “The paper is interesting and certainly would warrant future more definitive studies,” Jeff Sparks, a rheumatologist and researcher at Harvard Medical School, said of the French study. “It might even be enough data to use the regimen off-label for sick and hospitalized patients.

“However,” he added, “it does not prove that the regimen actually works.”

Despite efforts to pin blame for the shortages on Trump alone, however, hydroxychloroquine scarcity was already setting in weeks ago, as doctors began responding on their own to percolating and preliminary research. Some evidence suggests that many doctors are now writing prescriptions prophylactically for patients with no known illness — as well as for themselves and family members — prompting at least one state pharmacy board to call an emergency meeting, scheduled for Sunday morning. The board planned to bar pharmacists from dispensing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for anyone other than confirmed Covid-19 patients without approval of the board's director.

A prolonged shortfall in supplies would likely have grave implications for people who depend on it — including Powers, who believes that she would not be alive today without the drug. “I guarantee you, it has saved my life,” she said. “It’s the only thing that’s protecting my organs. There’s nothing else.” Like others, she hopes that pharmaceutical companies that manufacture versions of the drug will be able to quickly ramp up production — something several have already promised to do. In the meantime, Powers has a message for the American public — one echoed by most lupus doctors: When it comes to hydroxychloroquine: “If you don’t need it, don’t get it.”

The origins of hydroxychloroquine can be traced back hundreds of years to South America, where the bark of the cinchona tree appears to have been used by Andean populations to treat shivering. European missionaries eventually brought the bark to Europe, where it was used to treat malaria. In 1820, French researchers isolated the substance in the bark responsible for its beneficial effects. They named it “quinine.” When the supply from South America began to dry up, the British and Dutch decided to grow the tree on plantations.

Over time, synthetic versions were developed, including a drug called chloroquine, which was created in the midst of World War II in an effort to spare overseas American troops from malaria. As it turned out, troops with rashes and arthritis saw an improvement in symptoms after using this anti-malarial medication. After the war, a related drug was created, one with fewer side-effects when taken long-term: hydroxychloroquine. It went on to be used to treat many types of autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The latter, which disproportionately affects women, used to cut lives short — typically from failure of the kidneys. Those numbers have been reduced with strict management of the disease, but the Lupus Foundation of America estimates that 10 to 15 percent of patients die prematurely due to complications of the disease.

For almost a quarter century, Julie Powers, a 48-year-old non-profit professional from Maryland, has been taking the same medication for her lupus — and until recently, she never worried that her supply would run out. Now she’s terrified that she might lose access to a drug that prevents her immune system from attacking her heart, lungs, and skin. She describes a feeling akin to being underwater, near drowning: “That’s what my life would be like,” she said. “I’ll suffocate.”

Powers’ concerns began roughly a week ago when she learned that her lupus drug, hydroxychloroquine (hi-DROCK-see-KLORA-quin), may be helpful in the treatment of Covid-19, the illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus now racing across the planet. The medication was already being used around world to treat Covid-19 patients, but evidence of its effectiveness was largely anecdotal. Then, on March 16, a renowned infectious disease specialist, Didier Raoult, announced the results of a small clinical trial in France showing that patients receiving a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the common antibiotic azithromycin had notably lower levels of the virus in their bloodstream than those who did not receive the medication.

In the last week, this once obscure drug has been thrust into the national spotlight with everyone from doctors, to laypeople, to the U.S. president weighing in. The attention has so dramatically driven up demand that pharmacists are reporting depleted stocks of the drug, leaving many of the roughly 1.5 million lupus patients across the country unable to get their prescriptions filled. They now face an uncertain future as the public clings to one of the first signs of hope to appear since the coronavirus began sweeping across the U.S.

But scientists and physicians caution that this hope is based on studies that have been conducted outside of traditional scientific timelines. “The paper is interesting and certainly would warrant future more definitive studies,” Jeff Sparks, a rheumatologist and researcher at Harvard Medical School, said of the French study. “It might even be enough data to use the regimen off-label for sick and hospitalized patients.

“However,” he added, “it does not prove that the regimen actually works.”

Despite efforts to pin blame for the shortages on Trump alone, however, hydroxychloroquine scarcity was already setting in weeks ago, as doctors began responding on their own to percolating and preliminary research. Some evidence suggests that many doctors are now writing prescriptions prophylactically for patients with no known illness — as well as for themselves and family members — prompting at least one state pharmacy board to call an emergency meeting, scheduled for Sunday morning. The board planned to bar pharmacists from dispensing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for anyone other than confirmed Covid-19 patients without approval of the board's director.

A prolonged shortfall in supplies would likely have grave implications for people who depend on it — including Powers, who believes that she would not be alive today without the drug. “I guarantee you, it has saved my life,” she said. “It’s the only thing that’s protecting my organs. There’s nothing else.” Like others, she hopes that pharmaceutical companies that manufacture versions of the drug will be able to quickly ramp up production — something several have already promised to do. In the meantime, Powers has a message for the American public — one echoed by most lupus doctors: When it comes to hydroxychloroquine: “If you don’t need it, don’t get it.”

The origins of hydroxychloroquine can be traced back hundreds of years to South America, where the bark of the cinchona tree appears to have been used by Andean populations to treat shivering. European missionaries eventually brought the bark to Europe, where it was used to treat malaria. In 1820, French researchers isolated the substance in the bark responsible for its beneficial effects. They named it “quinine.” When the supply from South America began to dry up, the British and Dutch decided to grow the tree on plantations.

Over time, synthetic versions were developed, including a drug called chloroquine, which was created in the midst of World War II in an effort to spare overseas American troops from malaria. As it turned out, troops with rashes and arthritis saw an improvement in symptoms after using this anti-malarial medication. After the war, a related drug was created, one with fewer side-effects when taken long-term: hydroxychloroquine. It went on to be used to treat many types of autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The latter, which disproportionately affects women, used to cut lives short — typically from failure of the kidneys. Those numbers have been reduced with strict management of the disease, but the Lupus Foundation of America estimates that 10 to 15 percent of patients die prematurely due to complications of the disease.

For almost a quarter century, Julie Powers, a 48-year-old non-profit professional from Maryland, has been taking the same medication for her lupus — and until recently, she never worried that her supply would run out. Now she’s terrified that she might lose access to a drug that prevents her immune system from attacking her heart, lungs, and skin. She describes a feeling akin to being underwater, near drowning: “That’s what my life would be like,” she said. “I’ll suffocate.”

Powers’ concerns began roughly a week ago when she learned that her lupus drug, hydroxychloroquine (hi-DROCK-see-KLORA-quin), may be helpful in the treatment of Covid-19, the illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus now racing across the planet. The medication was already being used around world to treat Covid-19 patients, but evidence of its effectiveness was largely anecdotal. Then, on March 16, a renowned infectious disease specialist, Didier Raoult, announced the results of a small clinical trial in France showing that patients receiving a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the common antibiotic azithromycin had notably lower levels of the virus in their bloodstream than those who did not receive the medication.

In the last week, this once obscure drug has been thrust into the national spotlight with everyone from doctors, to laypeople, to the U.S. president weighing in. The attention has so dramatically driven up demand that pharmacists are reporting depleted stocks of the drug, leaving many of the roughly 1.5 million lupus patients across the country unable to get their prescriptions filled. They now face an uncertain future as the public clings to one of the first signs of hope to appear since the coronavirus began sweeping across the U.S.

But scientists and physicians caution that this hope is based on studies that have been conducted outside of traditional scientific timelines. “The paper is interesting and certainly would warrant future more definitive studies,” Jeff Sparks, a rheumatologist and researcher at Harvard Medical School, said of the French study. “It might even be enough data to use the regimen off-label for sick and hospitalized patients.

“However,” he added, “it does not prove that the regimen actually works.”

Despite efforts to pin blame for the shortages on Trump alone, however, hydroxychloroquine scarcity was already setting in weeks ago, as doctors began responding on their own to percolating and preliminary research. Some evidence suggests that many doctors are now writing prescriptions prophylactically for patients with no known illness — as well as for themselves and family members — prompting at least one state pharmacy board to call an emergency meeting, scheduled for Sunday morning. The board planned to bar pharmacists from dispensing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for anyone other than confirmed Covid-19 patients without approval of the board's director.

A prolonged shortfall in supplies would likely have grave implications for people who depend on it — including Powers, who believes that she would not be alive today without the drug. “I guarantee you, it has saved my life,” she said. “It’s the only thing that’s protecting my organs. There’s nothing else.” Like others, she hopes that pharmaceutical companies that manufacture versions of the drug will be able to quickly ramp up production — something several have already promised to do. In the meantime, Powers has a message for the American public — one echoed by most lupus doctors: When it comes to hydroxychloroquine: “If you don’t need it, don’t get it.”

The origins of hydroxychloroquine can be traced back hundreds of years to South America, where the bark of the cinchona tree appears to have been used by Andean populations to treat shivering. European missionaries eventually brought the bark to Europe, where it was used to treat malaria. In 1820, French researchers isolated the substance in the bark responsible for its beneficial effects. They named it “quinine.” When the supply from South America began to dry up, the British and Dutch decided to grow the tree on plantations.

Over time, synthetic versions were developed, including a drug called chloroquine, which was created in the midst of World War II in an effort to spare overseas American troops from malaria. As it turned out, troops with rashes and arthritis saw an improvement in symptoms after using this anti-malarial medication. After the war, a related drug was created, one with fewer side-effects when taken long-term: hydroxychloroquine. It went on to be used to treat many types of autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The latter, which disproportionately affects women, used to cut lives short — typically from failure of the kidneys. Those numbers have been reduced with strict management of the disease, but the Lupus Foundation of America estimates that 10 to 15 percent of patients die prematurely due to complications of the disease.

In a webinar conducted on March 20, Leonard Valentino, MD, president and CEO of the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), provided specific information of relevance and some reassurance to the bleeding disorders community on the impact of COVID-19.

Overall, the risk of comorbidities is no different in the bleeding disorders population than in the general population, and similar precautions should be maintained, Dr. Valentino stated. He listed some of the at-risk populations as designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In particular, he pointed out that, when the CDC referred to a greater risk of COVID-19 to individuals with bleeding disorders, the organization was referring to patients with HIV and sickle cell disease. The CDC was not referring to patients with other forms of bleeding disorders, such as hemophilia, Dr. Valentino stated.

All individuals should be following CDC and state and federal recommendations with regard to social distancing and hygiene. However, with regard to immunocompromised individuals, “the two populations we [in the bleeding disorders community] have to be concerned about are those in gene therapy clinical trials and those with inhibitors,” said Dr. Valentino.

Patients in a gene therapy clinical trial should exercise additional precautions because the use of steroids, common in these trials. “Steroids are an immunosuppressive drug, and this would increase one’s risk of infection, including COVID-19,” according to Dr. Valentino.

In addition, “I will say, if you have hemophilia and an inhibitor [an antibody to clotting factor treatment], that may alter the immune system, and we don’t know what the implication of that is in terms of coronavirus infection and COVID-19 disease. So people with an inhibitor should take special precautions to limit their exposures.”

Patients with a port should not need to have extra concerns regarding COVID-19, but they should continue to exercise the good hygiene that has always been essential, according to Dr. Valentino.

Dr. Valentino asked: Are patients with a bleeding disorder who become infected with COVID-19 more susceptible to a bleed? “You shouldn’t be more susceptible to bleeding except if you have severe cough, and that cough could result in bleeding to the head,” he answered.

If a patient needs to go to the emergency department for a bleed or possible COVID-19 infection, they should wear a face mask if they are sick to prevent spreading of disease. “This is really the only instance where a face mask may be beneficial” in that it limits other people’s exposure to your infection. It is especially important to call ahead before visiting the doctor or going to the emergency department. “Make sure that they’re aware that you’re coming.”

Of particular concern to patients is the amount of factor product they should have on hand. The current CDC recommendation is a 30-day supply of medicines, but that is misleading, because it refers to general medications, such as high-blood pressure medicine, and not factor products. “The current MASAC [NHF’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Council] recommendation is to have a 14-day supply of factor products available to you,” said Dr. Valentino, “and one should reorder when you have a 1-week supply.”

MASAC has issued a letter on the crisis on the NHF website.

These recommendations should not be exceeded in order to ensure that there is enough factor available to all patients, he added. Hoarding is discouraged, and there are no concerns as yet of factor running out. “We have had conversations with manufacturers and … the supply chain is robust.” The greater concern is with regard to ancillary supplies in the hospital that a hemophilia patient may require during treatment.

Patients and practitioners should consult the COVID-19 pages of both the NHF and Hemophilia Federation of America (HFA) websites. This includes a Health and Wellness update by Dr. Valentino.

With regard to financial issues, he and Sharon Meyers, CEO and president of the HFA, spoke, stating that both NHF and HFA have advocacy for patients seeking to deal with insurance issues or in paying for their products, urging people to go to the organizational websites and to also use their emails: [email protected] and [email protected].

She also announced that the annual meeting of the HFA was being postponed to Aug. 24-26 at the Hilton Inner Harbor Baltimore, Md.

Dr. Valentino and Ms. Meyers did not provide any disclosure information.

[email protected]

In a webinar conducted on March 20, Leonard Valentino, MD, president and CEO of the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), provided specific information of relevance and some reassurance to the bleeding disorders community on the impact of COVID-19.

Overall, the risk of comorbidities is no different in the bleeding disorders population than in the general population, and similar precautions should be maintained, Dr. Valentino stated. He listed some of the at-risk populations as designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In particular, he pointed out that, when the CDC referred to a greater risk of COVID-19 to individuals with bleeding disorders, the organization was referring to patients with HIV and sickle cell disease. The CDC was not referring to patients with other forms of bleeding disorders, such as hemophilia, Dr. Valentino stated.

All individuals should be following CDC and state and federal recommendations with regard to social distancing and hygiene. However, with regard to immunocompromised individuals, “the two populations we [in the bleeding disorders community] have to be concerned about are those in gene therapy clinical trials and those with inhibitors,” said Dr. Valentino.

Patients in a gene therapy clinical trial should exercise additional precautions because the use of steroids, common in these trials. “Steroids are an immunosuppressive drug, and this would increase one’s risk of infection, including COVID-19,” according to Dr. Valentino.

In addition, “I will say, if you have hemophilia and an inhibitor [an antibody to clotting factor treatment], that may alter the immune system, and we don’t know what the implication of that is in terms of coronavirus infection and COVID-19 disease. So people with an inhibitor should take special precautions to limit their exposures.”

Patients with a port should not need to have extra concerns regarding COVID-19, but they should continue to exercise the good hygiene that has always been essential, according to Dr. Valentino.

Dr. Valentino asked: Are patients with a bleeding disorder who become infected with COVID-19 more susceptible to a bleed? “You shouldn’t be more susceptible to bleeding except if you have severe cough, and that cough could result in bleeding to the head,” he answered.

If a patient needs to go to the emergency department for a bleed or possible COVID-19 infection, they should wear a face mask if they are sick to prevent spreading of disease. “This is really the only instance where a face mask may be beneficial” in that it limits other people’s exposure to your infection. It is especially important to call ahead before visiting the doctor or going to the emergency department. “Make sure that they’re aware that you’re coming.”

Of particular concern to patients is the amount of factor product they should have on hand. The current CDC recommendation is a 30-day supply of medicines, but that is misleading, because it refers to general medications, such as high-blood pressure medicine, and not factor products. “The current MASAC [NHF’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Council] recommendation is to have a 14-day supply of factor products available to you,” said Dr. Valentino, “and one should reorder when you have a 1-week supply.”

MASAC has issued a letter on the crisis on the NHF website.

These recommendations should not be exceeded in order to ensure that there is enough factor available to all patients, he added. Hoarding is discouraged, and there are no concerns as yet of factor running out. “We have had conversations with manufacturers and … the supply chain is robust.” The greater concern is with regard to ancillary supplies in the hospital that a hemophilia patient may require during treatment.

Patients and practitioners should consult the COVID-19 pages of both the NHF and Hemophilia Federation of America (HFA) websites. This includes a Health and Wellness update by Dr. Valentino.

With regard to financial issues, he and Sharon Meyers, CEO and president of the HFA, spoke, stating that both NHF and HFA have advocacy for patients seeking to deal with insurance issues or in paying for their products, urging people to go to the organizational websites and to also use their emails: [email protected] and [email protected].

She also announced that the annual meeting of the HFA was being postponed to Aug. 24-26 at the Hilton Inner Harbor Baltimore, Md.

Dr. Valentino and Ms. Meyers did not provide any disclosure information.

[email protected]

In a webinar conducted on March 20, Leonard Valentino, MD, president and CEO of the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), provided specific information of relevance and some reassurance to the bleeding disorders community on the impact of COVID-19.

Overall, the risk of comorbidities is no different in the bleeding disorders population than in the general population, and similar precautions should be maintained, Dr. Valentino stated. He listed some of the at-risk populations as designated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In particular, he pointed out that, when the CDC referred to a greater risk of COVID-19 to individuals with bleeding disorders, the organization was referring to patients with HIV and sickle cell disease. The CDC was not referring to patients with other forms of bleeding disorders, such as hemophilia, Dr. Valentino stated.

All individuals should be following CDC and state and federal recommendations with regard to social distancing and hygiene. However, with regard to immunocompromised individuals, “the two populations we [in the bleeding disorders community] have to be concerned about are those in gene therapy clinical trials and those with inhibitors,” said Dr. Valentino.

Patients in a gene therapy clinical trial should exercise additional precautions because the use of steroids, common in these trials. “Steroids are an immunosuppressive drug, and this would increase one’s risk of infection, including COVID-19,” according to Dr. Valentino.

In addition, “I will say, if you have hemophilia and an inhibitor [an antibody to clotting factor treatment], that may alter the immune system, and we don’t know what the implication of that is in terms of coronavirus infection and COVID-19 disease. So people with an inhibitor should take special precautions to limit their exposures.”

Patients with a port should not need to have extra concerns regarding COVID-19, but they should continue to exercise the good hygiene that has always been essential, according to Dr. Valentino.

Dr. Valentino asked: Are patients with a bleeding disorder who become infected with COVID-19 more susceptible to a bleed? “You shouldn’t be more susceptible to bleeding except if you have severe cough, and that cough could result in bleeding to the head,” he answered.

If a patient needs to go to the emergency department for a bleed or possible COVID-19 infection, they should wear a face mask if they are sick to prevent spreading of disease. “This is really the only instance where a face mask may be beneficial” in that it limits other people’s exposure to your infection. It is especially important to call ahead before visiting the doctor or going to the emergency department. “Make sure that they’re aware that you’re coming.”

Of particular concern to patients is the amount of factor product they should have on hand. The current CDC recommendation is a 30-day supply of medicines, but that is misleading, because it refers to general medications, such as high-blood pressure medicine, and not factor products. “The current MASAC [NHF’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Council] recommendation is to have a 14-day supply of factor products available to you,” said Dr. Valentino, “and one should reorder when you have a 1-week supply.”

MASAC has issued a letter on the crisis on the NHF website.

These recommendations should not be exceeded in order to ensure that there is enough factor available to all patients, he added. Hoarding is discouraged, and there are no concerns as yet of factor running out. “We have had conversations with manufacturers and … the supply chain is robust.” The greater concern is with regard to ancillary supplies in the hospital that a hemophilia patient may require during treatment.

Patients and practitioners should consult the COVID-19 pages of both the NHF and Hemophilia Federation of America (HFA) websites. This includes a Health and Wellness update by Dr. Valentino.

With regard to financial issues, he and Sharon Meyers, CEO and president of the HFA, spoke, stating that both NHF and HFA have advocacy for patients seeking to deal with insurance issues or in paying for their products, urging people to go to the organizational websites and to also use their emails: [email protected] and [email protected].

She also announced that the annual meeting of the HFA was being postponed to Aug. 24-26 at the Hilton Inner Harbor Baltimore, Md.

Dr. Valentino and Ms. Meyers did not provide any disclosure information.

[email protected]

Gastroenterologists and other clinicians caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease are being encouraged to report outcomes for pediatric and adult patients with IBD and COVID-19 infections to a new international registry.

The Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD) registry is a repository for data on all cases of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, including those who are asymptomatic and detected only through public health screening.

The idea for the registry came from gastroenterologists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

It was developed out of the recognition that, “with the emergence of this international health crisis, it would make sense to develop a registry to allow clinicians taking care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease to report on the specifics of their cases, so that we could then quickly define what the impact is of this disease on our patients, and determine how disease severity, medication, and specific demographics impact COVID-related outcomes in our population,” said registry cofounder Erica Brenner, MD, a pediatric gastroenterology fellow at UNC.

As of March 19, 2020, 14 cases of COVID-19 infections in patients with IBD had been reported to the registry: 6 from the United States, 3 from Spain, and 1 each from the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands. There were no patient deaths, and only two required hospitalization. Neither of the hospitalized patients required intensive care or ventilator support.

Dr. Brenner noted that it’s still early days, and that a clearer picture of the pandemic will begin to emerge as more cases are reported.

“We are planning at least weekly to update our ‘Updates and Data’ tab on the registry with summary data and aggregate information,” she said in an interview.

All data in the registry are deidentified in accordance with HIPAA Safe Harbor standards. The UNC–Chapel Hill Office for Human Research Ethics has determined that storage and analysis of deidentified data is exempt from institutional review board requirement because it does not constitute human subjects research as defined under federal regulations.

SECURE-IBD was the inspiration for a similarly designed COVID-19 registry for clinicians who treat patients with rheumatologic disorders, who often are treated with immunosuppressive agents familiar to the rheumatology community, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and methotrexate.

“We’re in the process of talking to different leaders across specialties to leverage our blueprint to implement registries in all sorts of disease states, including cirrhosis, psoriasis, lupus, and sickle cell disease,” Dr. Brenner said.

The data entry process is estimated to take 5 minutes. Participating clinicians are requested to reported on confirmed COVID-19 cases only “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

“The success of this registry depends on international collaboration and buy-in from clinicians around the world, so we really encourage all clinicians who take care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease to go to our website and report a case,” Dr. Brenner said.

Gastroenterologists and other clinicians caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease are being encouraged to report outcomes for pediatric and adult patients with IBD and COVID-19 infections to a new international registry.

The Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD) registry is a repository for data on all cases of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, including those who are asymptomatic and detected only through public health screening.

The idea for the registry came from gastroenterologists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

It was developed out of the recognition that, “with the emergence of this international health crisis, it would make sense to develop a registry to allow clinicians taking care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease to report on the specifics of their cases, so that we could then quickly define what the impact is of this disease on our patients, and determine how disease severity, medication, and specific demographics impact COVID-related outcomes in our population,” said registry cofounder Erica Brenner, MD, a pediatric gastroenterology fellow at UNC.

As of March 19, 2020, 14 cases of COVID-19 infections in patients with IBD had been reported to the registry: 6 from the United States, 3 from Spain, and 1 each from the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands. There were no patient deaths, and only two required hospitalization. Neither of the hospitalized patients required intensive care or ventilator support.

Dr. Brenner noted that it’s still early days, and that a clearer picture of the pandemic will begin to emerge as more cases are reported.

“We are planning at least weekly to update our ‘Updates and Data’ tab on the registry with summary data and aggregate information,” she said in an interview.

All data in the registry are deidentified in accordance with HIPAA Safe Harbor standards. The UNC–Chapel Hill Office for Human Research Ethics has determined that storage and analysis of deidentified data is exempt from institutional review board requirement because it does not constitute human subjects research as defined under federal regulations.

SECURE-IBD was the inspiration for a similarly designed COVID-19 registry for clinicians who treat patients with rheumatologic disorders, who often are treated with immunosuppressive agents familiar to the rheumatology community, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and methotrexate.

“We’re in the process of talking to different leaders across specialties to leverage our blueprint to implement registries in all sorts of disease states, including cirrhosis, psoriasis, lupus, and sickle cell disease,” Dr. Brenner said.

The data entry process is estimated to take 5 minutes. Participating clinicians are requested to reported on confirmed COVID-19 cases only “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

“The success of this registry depends on international collaboration and buy-in from clinicians around the world, so we really encourage all clinicians who take care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease to go to our website and report a case,” Dr. Brenner said.

Gastroenterologists and other clinicians caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease are being encouraged to report outcomes for pediatric and adult patients with IBD and COVID-19 infections to a new international registry.

The Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion (SECURE-IBD) registry is a repository for data on all cases of COVID-19 in patients with IBD, including those who are asymptomatic and detected only through public health screening.

The idea for the registry came from gastroenterologists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

It was developed out of the recognition that, “with the emergence of this international health crisis, it would make sense to develop a registry to allow clinicians taking care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease to report on the specifics of their cases, so that we could then quickly define what the impact is of this disease on our patients, and determine how disease severity, medication, and specific demographics impact COVID-related outcomes in our population,” said registry cofounder Erica Brenner, MD, a pediatric gastroenterology fellow at UNC.

As of March 19, 2020, 14 cases of COVID-19 infections in patients with IBD had been reported to the registry: 6 from the United States, 3 from Spain, and 1 each from the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands. There were no patient deaths, and only two required hospitalization. Neither of the hospitalized patients required intensive care or ventilator support.

Dr. Brenner noted that it’s still early days, and that a clearer picture of the pandemic will begin to emerge as more cases are reported.

“We are planning at least weekly to update our ‘Updates and Data’ tab on the registry with summary data and aggregate information,” she said in an interview.

All data in the registry are deidentified in accordance with HIPAA Safe Harbor standards. The UNC–Chapel Hill Office for Human Research Ethics has determined that storage and analysis of deidentified data is exempt from institutional review board requirement because it does not constitute human subjects research as defined under federal regulations.

SECURE-IBD was the inspiration for a similarly designed COVID-19 registry for clinicians who treat patients with rheumatologic disorders, who often are treated with immunosuppressive agents familiar to the rheumatology community, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and methotrexate.

“We’re in the process of talking to different leaders across specialties to leverage our blueprint to implement registries in all sorts of disease states, including cirrhosis, psoriasis, lupus, and sickle cell disease,” Dr. Brenner said.

The data entry process is estimated to take 5 minutes. Participating clinicians are requested to reported on confirmed COVID-19 cases only “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

“The success of this registry depends on international collaboration and buy-in from clinicians around the world, so we really encourage all clinicians who take care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease to go to our website and report a case,” Dr. Brenner said.

Researchers have hypothesized that treatments that increase angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) may also increase the risk of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This speculation and other concerns have led some officials and organizations to question whether ibuprofen or other drugs such as renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists should be avoided as treatments in patients with COVID-19. Health agencies and professional organizations have said they are not recommending against these medications.

The Food and Drug Administration on March 19 advised patients that it was “not aware of scientific evidence connecting” nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen “with worsening COVID-19 symptoms.”

“The agency is investigating this issue further and will communicate publicly when more information is available,” the FDA said. “However, all prescription NSAID labels warn that ‘the pharmacological activity of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation, and possibly fever, may diminish the utility of diagnostic signs in detecting infections.’ ” The FDA also noted that other over-the-counter and prescription medications are available for pain relief and fever reduction, and patients who “are concerned about taking NSAIDs and rely on these medications to treat chronic diseases” should talk to a health care provider.

A World Health Organization spokesperson said during a press conference on March 17 that the organization was looking into concerns about ibuprofen use in patients with COVID-19 and suggested that in the meantime patients take acetaminophen for fever instead. On March 18, the WHO said that it was not recommending against the use of ibuprofen.

“At present, based on currently available information, WHO does not recommend against the use of ibuprofen,” the organization said. “We are also consulting with physicians treating COVID-19 patients and are not aware of reports of any negative effects of ibuprofen, beyond the usual known side effects that limit its use in certain populations. WHO is not aware of published clinical or population-based data on this topic.”

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said on March 18, “More research is needed to evaluate reports that ibruprofen and other over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs may affect the course of COVID-19. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence that ibuprofen and other over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of serious complications or of acquiring the virus that causes COVID-19. There is also no conclusive evidence that taking over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs is harmful for other respiratory infections.”

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) on March 18 said, “There is currently no scientific evidence establishing a link between ibuprofen and worsening of COVID‑19. EMA is monitoring the situation closely and will review any new information that becomes available on this issue in the context of the pandemic.”

In correspondence published March 11 in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Lei Fang, MD, of the department of biomedicine at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), and colleagues suggested that patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus may be at increased risk of COVID-19 because these comorbidities “are often treated with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.” In addition, “ACE2 polymorphisms that have been linked to diabetes mellitus, cerebral stroke, and hypertension” also may play a role, the researchers said (Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8).

“ACE2 is substantially increased in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, who are treated with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers (ARBs). Hypertension is also treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, which results in an upregulation of ACE2. ACE2 can also be increased by thiazolidinediones and ibuprofen.”

A March 16 statement from the Heart Failure Society of America (HSFC), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and American Heart Association (AHA) addressed concerns about using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19.

“Patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases appear to have an increased risk for adverse outcomes with [COVID-19],” the organizations said. “Although the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 are dominated by respiratory symptoms, some patients also may have severe cardiovascular damage. [ACE2] receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In a few experimental studies with animal models, both [ACE] inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to upregulate ACE2 expression in the heart. Though these have not been shown in human studies, or in the setting of COVID-19, such potential upregulation of ACE2 by ACE inhibitors or ARBs has resulted in a speculation of potential increased risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with background treatment of these medications.”

ACE2, ACE, angiotensin II, and other RAAS system interactions “are quite complex, and at times, paradoxical,” the statement says. “In experimental studies, both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to reduce severe lung injury in certain viral pneumonias, and it has been speculated that these agents could be beneficial in COVID-19.

“Currently there are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes with background use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs or other RAAS antagonists in COVID-19 or among COVID-19 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease treated with such agents. The HFSA, ACC, and AHA recommend continuation of RAAS antagonists for those patients who are currently prescribed such agents for indications for which these agents are known to be beneficial, such as heart failure, hypertension, or ischemic heart disease. In the event patients with cardiovascular disease are diagnosed with COVID-19, individualized treatment decisions should be made according to each patient’s hemodynamic status and clinical presentation. Therefore, be advised not to add or remove any RAAS-related treatments, beyond actions based on standard clinical practice.

“These theoretical concerns and findings of cardiovascular involvement with COVID-19 deserve much more detailed research, and quickly. As further research and developments related to this issue evolve, we will update these recommendations as needed.”

Dr. Fang and colleagues had no competing interests.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fang L et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8.

Researchers have hypothesized that treatments that increase angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) may also increase the risk of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This speculation and other concerns have led some officials and organizations to question whether ibuprofen or other drugs such as renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists should be avoided as treatments in patients with COVID-19. Health agencies and professional organizations have said they are not recommending against these medications.

The Food and Drug Administration on March 19 advised patients that it was “not aware of scientific evidence connecting” nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen “with worsening COVID-19 symptoms.”

“The agency is investigating this issue further and will communicate publicly when more information is available,” the FDA said. “However, all prescription NSAID labels warn that ‘the pharmacological activity of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation, and possibly fever, may diminish the utility of diagnostic signs in detecting infections.’ ” The FDA also noted that other over-the-counter and prescription medications are available for pain relief and fever reduction, and patients who “are concerned about taking NSAIDs and rely on these medications to treat chronic diseases” should talk to a health care provider.

A World Health Organization spokesperson said during a press conference on March 17 that the organization was looking into concerns about ibuprofen use in patients with COVID-19 and suggested that in the meantime patients take acetaminophen for fever instead. On March 18, the WHO said that it was not recommending against the use of ibuprofen.

“At present, based on currently available information, WHO does not recommend against the use of ibuprofen,” the organization said. “We are also consulting with physicians treating COVID-19 patients and are not aware of reports of any negative effects of ibuprofen, beyond the usual known side effects that limit its use in certain populations. WHO is not aware of published clinical or population-based data on this topic.”

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said on March 18, “More research is needed to evaluate reports that ibruprofen and other over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs may affect the course of COVID-19. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence that ibuprofen and other over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of serious complications or of acquiring the virus that causes COVID-19. There is also no conclusive evidence that taking over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs is harmful for other respiratory infections.”

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) on March 18 said, “There is currently no scientific evidence establishing a link between ibuprofen and worsening of COVID‑19. EMA is monitoring the situation closely and will review any new information that becomes available on this issue in the context of the pandemic.”

In correspondence published March 11 in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Lei Fang, MD, of the department of biomedicine at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), and colleagues suggested that patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus may be at increased risk of COVID-19 because these comorbidities “are often treated with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.” In addition, “ACE2 polymorphisms that have been linked to diabetes mellitus, cerebral stroke, and hypertension” also may play a role, the researchers said (Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8).

“ACE2 is substantially increased in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, who are treated with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers (ARBs). Hypertension is also treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, which results in an upregulation of ACE2. ACE2 can also be increased by thiazolidinediones and ibuprofen.”

A March 16 statement from the Heart Failure Society of America (HSFC), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and American Heart Association (AHA) addressed concerns about using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19.

“Patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases appear to have an increased risk for adverse outcomes with [COVID-19],” the organizations said. “Although the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 are dominated by respiratory symptoms, some patients also may have severe cardiovascular damage. [ACE2] receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In a few experimental studies with animal models, both [ACE] inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to upregulate ACE2 expression in the heart. Though these have not been shown in human studies, or in the setting of COVID-19, such potential upregulation of ACE2 by ACE inhibitors or ARBs has resulted in a speculation of potential increased risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with background treatment of these medications.”

ACE2, ACE, angiotensin II, and other RAAS system interactions “are quite complex, and at times, paradoxical,” the statement says. “In experimental studies, both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to reduce severe lung injury in certain viral pneumonias, and it has been speculated that these agents could be beneficial in COVID-19.

“Currently there are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes with background use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs or other RAAS antagonists in COVID-19 or among COVID-19 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease treated with such agents. The HFSA, ACC, and AHA recommend continuation of RAAS antagonists for those patients who are currently prescribed such agents for indications for which these agents are known to be beneficial, such as heart failure, hypertension, or ischemic heart disease. In the event patients with cardiovascular disease are diagnosed with COVID-19, individualized treatment decisions should be made according to each patient’s hemodynamic status and clinical presentation. Therefore, be advised not to add or remove any RAAS-related treatments, beyond actions based on standard clinical practice.

“These theoretical concerns and findings of cardiovascular involvement with COVID-19 deserve much more detailed research, and quickly. As further research and developments related to this issue evolve, we will update these recommendations as needed.”

Dr. Fang and colleagues had no competing interests.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fang L et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8.

Researchers have hypothesized that treatments that increase angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) may also increase the risk of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This speculation and other concerns have led some officials and organizations to question whether ibuprofen or other drugs such as renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists should be avoided as treatments in patients with COVID-19. Health agencies and professional organizations have said they are not recommending against these medications.

The Food and Drug Administration on March 19 advised patients that it was “not aware of scientific evidence connecting” nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen “with worsening COVID-19 symptoms.”

“The agency is investigating this issue further and will communicate publicly when more information is available,” the FDA said. “However, all prescription NSAID labels warn that ‘the pharmacological activity of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation, and possibly fever, may diminish the utility of diagnostic signs in detecting infections.’ ” The FDA also noted that other over-the-counter and prescription medications are available for pain relief and fever reduction, and patients who “are concerned about taking NSAIDs and rely on these medications to treat chronic diseases” should talk to a health care provider.

A World Health Organization spokesperson said during a press conference on March 17 that the organization was looking into concerns about ibuprofen use in patients with COVID-19 and suggested that in the meantime patients take acetaminophen for fever instead. On March 18, the WHO said that it was not recommending against the use of ibuprofen.

“At present, based on currently available information, WHO does not recommend against the use of ibuprofen,” the organization said. “We are also consulting with physicians treating COVID-19 patients and are not aware of reports of any negative effects of ibuprofen, beyond the usual known side effects that limit its use in certain populations. WHO is not aware of published clinical or population-based data on this topic.”

A spokesperson for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said on March 18, “More research is needed to evaluate reports that ibruprofen and other over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs may affect the course of COVID-19. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence that ibuprofen and other over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of serious complications or of acquiring the virus that causes COVID-19. There is also no conclusive evidence that taking over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs is harmful for other respiratory infections.”

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) on March 18 said, “There is currently no scientific evidence establishing a link between ibuprofen and worsening of COVID‑19. EMA is monitoring the situation closely and will review any new information that becomes available on this issue in the context of the pandemic.”

In correspondence published March 11 in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Lei Fang, MD, of the department of biomedicine at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), and colleagues suggested that patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus may be at increased risk of COVID-19 because these comorbidities “are often treated with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.” In addition, “ACE2 polymorphisms that have been linked to diabetes mellitus, cerebral stroke, and hypertension” also may play a role, the researchers said (Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8).

“ACE2 is substantially increased in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, who are treated with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers (ARBs). Hypertension is also treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, which results in an upregulation of ACE2. ACE2 can also be increased by thiazolidinediones and ibuprofen.”

A March 16 statement from the Heart Failure Society of America (HSFC), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and American Heart Association (AHA) addressed concerns about using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19.

“Patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases appear to have an increased risk for adverse outcomes with [COVID-19],” the organizations said. “Although the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 are dominated by respiratory symptoms, some patients also may have severe cardiovascular damage. [ACE2] receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In a few experimental studies with animal models, both [ACE] inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to upregulate ACE2 expression in the heart. Though these have not been shown in human studies, or in the setting of COVID-19, such potential upregulation of ACE2 by ACE inhibitors or ARBs has resulted in a speculation of potential increased risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with background treatment of these medications.”

ACE2, ACE, angiotensin II, and other RAAS system interactions “are quite complex, and at times, paradoxical,” the statement says. “In experimental studies, both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to reduce severe lung injury in certain viral pneumonias, and it has been speculated that these agents could be beneficial in COVID-19.

“Currently there are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes with background use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs or other RAAS antagonists in COVID-19 or among COVID-19 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease treated with such agents. The HFSA, ACC, and AHA recommend continuation of RAAS antagonists for those patients who are currently prescribed such agents for indications for which these agents are known to be beneficial, such as heart failure, hypertension, or ischemic heart disease. In the event patients with cardiovascular disease are diagnosed with COVID-19, individualized treatment decisions should be made according to each patient’s hemodynamic status and clinical presentation. Therefore, be advised not to add or remove any RAAS-related treatments, beyond actions based on standard clinical practice.

“These theoretical concerns and findings of cardiovascular involvement with COVID-19 deserve much more detailed research, and quickly. As further research and developments related to this issue evolve, we will update these recommendations as needed.”

Dr. Fang and colleagues had no competing interests.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fang L et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30116-8.

PHOENIX – Lower baseline fitness and greater decline in fitness over time are independently associated with a higher risk of heart failure in patients with diabetes, results from a large analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Diabetes is an important risk factor for the development of heart failure, and the diagnosis of diabetes in newly diagnosed cases of heart failure has been increasing,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased burden of traditional risk factors such as hypertension, kidney dysfunction, and dyslipidemia – each of which in turn increase the risk of both atherothrombotic disease as well as heart failure.”

Recent data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register have shown that optimal management of these risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes can actually mitigate the risk of atherosclerotic events such as acute MI, but the risk of heart failure does not significantly lower with optimal management of these traditional cardiovascular risk factors (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:633-44). “These findings highlight that novel approaches that go beyond just managing traditional cardiovascular risk factors are needed for prevention of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Pandey, of the division of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Our group has demonstrated that physical inactivity and low levels of fitness are associated with a higher risk of heart failure. We have also shown that the protective effect of physical activity against heart failure risk is stronger against heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, which is a subtype of heart failure that is increasing in prevalence and has no effective therapies.”

Dr. Pandey and his colleagues set out to test the research hypothesis that fitness decline and increases in body mass index over time are significantly associated with a higher risk of heart failure. To do this, they drew from the LookAHEAD Trial, a multicenter analysis of 5,145 overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to an intensive lifestyle intervention or to usual care. The intervention consisted of a caloric intake goal of 1,200 to 1,800 kcal per day and engaging in at least 175 minutes per week of physical activity. Participants were stratified into one of three fitness group levels: low, moderate, and high, from 5 metabolic equivalents (METs) in the lowest fitness tertile to 9 METs in the highest fitness tertile. The primary outcome of the trial was adverse cardiovascular events. The intervention was implemented for almost 10 years, and patients were followed for up to 12 years from baseline.

The heart failure outcomes were not systematically adjudicated in the primary LookAHEAD trial, so Dr. Pandey and colleagues conducted an ancillary study of all incident hospitalizations in the study and followed them for 2 additional years. Overall, the researchers identified 257 incident heart failure events. The cumulative incidence of heart failure for the usual care versus the intensive lifestyle intervention arm was not statistically different (an event rate of 4.53 vs. 4.32 per 1,000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96). “This demonstrated that the intensive lifestyle intervention in the LookAHEAD trial did not significantly modify the risk of heart failure,” Dr. Pandey said.

However, an adjusted analysis revealed that the risk of heart failure was 39% lower in the moderately fit group and 62% lower in the high fit group, compared with the low-fitness group. Among heart failure subtypes, the risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was 40% lower in the moderately fit group and 77% lower in the high-fitness group. On the other hand, baseline level of fitness level was not associated with risk of heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after the researchers adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors.

Next, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues used Cox modeling to examine the association of baseline and longitudinal changes in fitness and BMI with risk of heart failure. For change in fitness and BMI analysis, they used the 4-year follow-up data in 3,092 participants who underwent repeat fitness testing and had available data on BMI. They excluded patients who developed heart failure within the first 4 years of the study.

The mean age of the ancillary study population was about 60 years, and there was a lower proportion of women in the high fitness tertile (41%). The researchers observed a graded, inverse association between higher fitness levels and lower risk of heart failure such that increasing fitness from baseline was associated with a substantial decrease in the risk of heart failure. Specifically, a 10% decline in fitness over the 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 11% increase in the overall risk of heart failure (HR, 1.11). “This was largely consistent with the two heart failure subtypes,” he said. Similarly, a 10% increase in BMI over the 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 25% increase in the overall risk of heart failure (HR 1.25). On the other hand, a 10% decrease BMI was associated with a 20% decrease in the risk of heart failure (HR .80). This was also largely consistent for both heart failure subtypes. According to co-lead investigator Kershaw Patel, MD, “these findings suggest that therapies targeting large and sustained improvements in fitness and weight loss may modify the risk of heart failure among patients with diabetes.”

“Lower fitness at baseline was more strongly associated with the risk of HFpEF vs. HFrEF, and greater weight loss over follow-up is associated with a lower risk of heart failure independent of changes in other risk factors,” Dr. Pandey concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, said that it remains unclear what type of setting is ideal for carrying out cardiorespiratory fitness in this patient population. “What is the supervision needed for that to occur?” asked Dr. Joseph, of The Ohio State University, Columbus. “Can patients do this on their own, or do they need guidance? What is the best approach? That’s the question we all have to answer individually in our own communities.”

Dr. Pandey reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pandey A. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 16.

PHOENIX – Lower baseline fitness and greater decline in fitness over time are independently associated with a higher risk of heart failure in patients with diabetes, results from a large analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Diabetes is an important risk factor for the development of heart failure, and the diagnosis of diabetes in newly diagnosed cases of heart failure has been increasing,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased burden of traditional risk factors such as hypertension, kidney dysfunction, and dyslipidemia – each of which in turn increase the risk of both atherothrombotic disease as well as heart failure.”

Recent data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register have shown that optimal management of these risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes can actually mitigate the risk of atherosclerotic events such as acute MI, but the risk of heart failure does not significantly lower with optimal management of these traditional cardiovascular risk factors (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:633-44). “These findings highlight that novel approaches that go beyond just managing traditional cardiovascular risk factors are needed for prevention of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Pandey, of the division of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Our group has demonstrated that physical inactivity and low levels of fitness are associated with a higher risk of heart failure. We have also shown that the protective effect of physical activity against heart failure risk is stronger against heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, which is a subtype of heart failure that is increasing in prevalence and has no effective therapies.”

Dr. Pandey and his colleagues set out to test the research hypothesis that fitness decline and increases in body mass index over time are significantly associated with a higher risk of heart failure. To do this, they drew from the LookAHEAD Trial, a multicenter analysis of 5,145 overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to an intensive lifestyle intervention or to usual care. The intervention consisted of a caloric intake goal of 1,200 to 1,800 kcal per day and engaging in at least 175 minutes per week of physical activity. Participants were stratified into one of three fitness group levels: low, moderate, and high, from 5 metabolic equivalents (METs) in the lowest fitness tertile to 9 METs in the highest fitness tertile. The primary outcome of the trial was adverse cardiovascular events. The intervention was implemented for almost 10 years, and patients were followed for up to 12 years from baseline.

The heart failure outcomes were not systematically adjudicated in the primary LookAHEAD trial, so Dr. Pandey and colleagues conducted an ancillary study of all incident hospitalizations in the study and followed them for 2 additional years. Overall, the researchers identified 257 incident heart failure events. The cumulative incidence of heart failure for the usual care versus the intensive lifestyle intervention arm was not statistically different (an event rate of 4.53 vs. 4.32 per 1,000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96). “This demonstrated that the intensive lifestyle intervention in the LookAHEAD trial did not significantly modify the risk of heart failure,” Dr. Pandey said.

However, an adjusted analysis revealed that the risk of heart failure was 39% lower in the moderately fit group and 62% lower in the high fit group, compared with the low-fitness group. Among heart failure subtypes, the risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was 40% lower in the moderately fit group and 77% lower in the high-fitness group. On the other hand, baseline level of fitness level was not associated with risk of heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after the researchers adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors.

Next, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues used Cox modeling to examine the association of baseline and longitudinal changes in fitness and BMI with risk of heart failure. For change in fitness and BMI analysis, they used the 4-year follow-up data in 3,092 participants who underwent repeat fitness testing and had available data on BMI. They excluded patients who developed heart failure within the first 4 years of the study.

The mean age of the ancillary study population was about 60 years, and there was a lower proportion of women in the high fitness tertile (41%). The researchers observed a graded, inverse association between higher fitness levels and lower risk of heart failure such that increasing fitness from baseline was associated with a substantial decrease in the risk of heart failure. Specifically, a 10% decline in fitness over the 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 11% increase in the overall risk of heart failure (HR, 1.11). “This was largely consistent with the two heart failure subtypes,” he said. Similarly, a 10% increase in BMI over the 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 25% increase in the overall risk of heart failure (HR 1.25). On the other hand, a 10% decrease BMI was associated with a 20% decrease in the risk of heart failure (HR .80). This was also largely consistent for both heart failure subtypes. According to co-lead investigator Kershaw Patel, MD, “these findings suggest that therapies targeting large and sustained improvements in fitness and weight loss may modify the risk of heart failure among patients with diabetes.”

“Lower fitness at baseline was more strongly associated with the risk of HFpEF vs. HFrEF, and greater weight loss over follow-up is associated with a lower risk of heart failure independent of changes in other risk factors,” Dr. Pandey concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, said that it remains unclear what type of setting is ideal for carrying out cardiorespiratory fitness in this patient population. “What is the supervision needed for that to occur?” asked Dr. Joseph, of The Ohio State University, Columbus. “Can patients do this on their own, or do they need guidance? What is the best approach? That’s the question we all have to answer individually in our own communities.”

Dr. Pandey reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pandey A. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 16.

PHOENIX – Lower baseline fitness and greater decline in fitness over time are independently associated with a higher risk of heart failure in patients with diabetes, results from a large analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Diabetes is an important risk factor for the development of heart failure, and the diagnosis of diabetes in newly diagnosed cases of heart failure has been increasing,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased burden of traditional risk factors such as hypertension, kidney dysfunction, and dyslipidemia – each of which in turn increase the risk of both atherothrombotic disease as well as heart failure.”

Recent data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register have shown that optimal management of these risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes can actually mitigate the risk of atherosclerotic events such as acute MI, but the risk of heart failure does not significantly lower with optimal management of these traditional cardiovascular risk factors (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:633-44). “These findings highlight that novel approaches that go beyond just managing traditional cardiovascular risk factors are needed for prevention of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Pandey, of the division of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Our group has demonstrated that physical inactivity and low levels of fitness are associated with a higher risk of heart failure. We have also shown that the protective effect of physical activity against heart failure risk is stronger against heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, which is a subtype of heart failure that is increasing in prevalence and has no effective therapies.”

Dr. Pandey and his colleagues set out to test the research hypothesis that fitness decline and increases in body mass index over time are significantly associated with a higher risk of heart failure. To do this, they drew from the LookAHEAD Trial, a multicenter analysis of 5,145 overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to an intensive lifestyle intervention or to usual care. The intervention consisted of a caloric intake goal of 1,200 to 1,800 kcal per day and engaging in at least 175 minutes per week of physical activity. Participants were stratified into one of three fitness group levels: low, moderate, and high, from 5 metabolic equivalents (METs) in the lowest fitness tertile to 9 METs in the highest fitness tertile. The primary outcome of the trial was adverse cardiovascular events. The intervention was implemented for almost 10 years, and patients were followed for up to 12 years from baseline.

The heart failure outcomes were not systematically adjudicated in the primary LookAHEAD trial, so Dr. Pandey and colleagues conducted an ancillary study of all incident hospitalizations in the study and followed them for 2 additional years. Overall, the researchers identified 257 incident heart failure events. The cumulative incidence of heart failure for the usual care versus the intensive lifestyle intervention arm was not statistically different (an event rate of 4.53 vs. 4.32 per 1,000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.96). “This demonstrated that the intensive lifestyle intervention in the LookAHEAD trial did not significantly modify the risk of heart failure,” Dr. Pandey said.

However, an adjusted analysis revealed that the risk of heart failure was 39% lower in the moderately fit group and 62% lower in the high fit group, compared with the low-fitness group. Among heart failure subtypes, the risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was 40% lower in the moderately fit group and 77% lower in the high-fitness group. On the other hand, baseline level of fitness level was not associated with risk of heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after the researchers adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors.

Next, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues used Cox modeling to examine the association of baseline and longitudinal changes in fitness and BMI with risk of heart failure. For change in fitness and BMI analysis, they used the 4-year follow-up data in 3,092 participants who underwent repeat fitness testing and had available data on BMI. They excluded patients who developed heart failure within the first 4 years of the study.

The mean age of the ancillary study population was about 60 years, and there was a lower proportion of women in the high fitness tertile (41%). The researchers observed a graded, inverse association between higher fitness levels and lower risk of heart failure such that increasing fitness from baseline was associated with a substantial decrease in the risk of heart failure. Specifically, a 10% decline in fitness over the 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 11% increase in the overall risk of heart failure (HR, 1.11). “This was largely consistent with the two heart failure subtypes,” he said. Similarly, a 10% increase in BMI over the 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 25% increase in the overall risk of heart failure (HR 1.25). On the other hand, a 10% decrease BMI was associated with a 20% decrease in the risk of heart failure (HR .80). This was also largely consistent for both heart failure subtypes. According to co-lead investigator Kershaw Patel, MD, “these findings suggest that therapies targeting large and sustained improvements in fitness and weight loss may modify the risk of heart failure among patients with diabetes.”

“Lower fitness at baseline was more strongly associated with the risk of HFpEF vs. HFrEF, and greater weight loss over follow-up is associated with a lower risk of heart failure independent of changes in other risk factors,” Dr. Pandey concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In an interview, session moderator Joshua J. Joseph, MD, said that it remains unclear what type of setting is ideal for carrying out cardiorespiratory fitness in this patient population. “What is the supervision needed for that to occur?” asked Dr. Joseph, of The Ohio State University, Columbus. “Can patients do this on their own, or do they need guidance? What is the best approach? That’s the question we all have to answer individually in our own communities.”

Dr. Pandey reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pandey A. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 16.

The viral tsunami that is COVID-19 has hit the United States, and influenza appears to be riding the crest of the wave.

Flu activity, in the form of visits to health care providers, increased for the second consecutive week after declining for the three previous weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Flu-related visits went from 5.2% of all outpatient visits the week before to 5.8% during the week ending March 14.

“The COVID-19 outbreak unfolding in the United States may affect healthcare seeking behavior which in turn would impact data from” the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the CDC explained.

Data from clinical laboratories show that, despite the increased activity, fewer respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza: 15.3% for the week of March 8-14, compared with 21.1% the week before, the CDC’s influenza division said in its latest FluView report.

Influenza activity also increased slightly among the states, with 35 states and Puerto Rico at the highest level on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, versus 34 states and Puerto Rico the previous week. The count was down to 33 for the last week of February, CDC data show.

Severity measures remain mixed as overall hospitalization continues to be moderate but rates for children aged 0-4 years and adults aged 18-49 years are the highest on record and rates for children aged 5-17 years are the highest since the 2009 pandemic, the influenza division said.

Mortality data present a similar picture: The overall death rate is low, but the 149 flu-related deaths reported among children is the most for this point of the season since 2009, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The viral tsunami that is COVID-19 has hit the United States, and influenza appears to be riding the crest of the wave.

Flu activity, in the form of visits to health care providers, increased for the second consecutive week after declining for the three previous weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Flu-related visits went from 5.2% of all outpatient visits the week before to 5.8% during the week ending March 14.

“The COVID-19 outbreak unfolding in the United States may affect healthcare seeking behavior which in turn would impact data from” the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the CDC explained.

Data from clinical laboratories show that, despite the increased activity, fewer respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza: 15.3% for the week of March 8-14, compared with 21.1% the week before, the CDC’s influenza division said in its latest FluView report.

Influenza activity also increased slightly among the states, with 35 states and Puerto Rico at the highest level on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, versus 34 states and Puerto Rico the previous week. The count was down to 33 for the last week of February, CDC data show.

Severity measures remain mixed as overall hospitalization continues to be moderate but rates for children aged 0-4 years and adults aged 18-49 years are the highest on record and rates for children aged 5-17 years are the highest since the 2009 pandemic, the influenza division said.

Mortality data present a similar picture: The overall death rate is low, but the 149 flu-related deaths reported among children is the most for this point of the season since 2009, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The viral tsunami that is COVID-19 has hit the United States, and influenza appears to be riding the crest of the wave.

Flu activity, in the form of visits to health care providers, increased for the second consecutive week after declining for the three previous weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Flu-related visits went from 5.2% of all outpatient visits the week before to 5.8% during the week ending March 14.

“The COVID-19 outbreak unfolding in the United States may affect healthcare seeking behavior which in turn would impact data from” the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the CDC explained.

Data from clinical laboratories show that, despite the increased activity, fewer respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza: 15.3% for the week of March 8-14, compared with 21.1% the week before, the CDC’s influenza division said in its latest FluView report.

Influenza activity also increased slightly among the states, with 35 states and Puerto Rico at the highest level on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, versus 34 states and Puerto Rico the previous week. The count was down to 33 for the last week of February, CDC data show.

Severity measures remain mixed as overall hospitalization continues to be moderate but rates for children aged 0-4 years and adults aged 18-49 years are the highest on record and rates for children aged 5-17 years are the highest since the 2009 pandemic, the influenza division said.

Mortality data present a similar picture: The overall death rate is low, but the 149 flu-related deaths reported among children is the most for this point of the season since 2009, the CDC said.

[email protected]

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

Unifying allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) applicants for the first time in a single matching program, 2020’s Match Day results underscored the continuing growth of DOs in the field, boosting numbers in primary care medicine and the Match as a whole.

Gains, trends in 2020 match

Growth in U.S. DO senior participation also pushed this year’s Match to record highs. There were 6,581 U.S. DO medical school seniors who submitted rank order lists, 1,103 more than in 2019. Among those seniors, 90.7% matched to PGY-1 positions, driving the match rate for U.S. DO seniors up 2.6 percentage points from 2019.

Since 2016, the number of U.S. DO seniors seeking positions has risen by 3,599 or 120%. “Of course, the number of U.S. MD seniors who submitted program choices was also record-high: 19,326, an increase of 401 over 2019. The 93.7% match rate to first-year positions for this group has remained very consistent for many years,” Dr. Lamb said.

Among individual specialties, the NRMP reported extremely high fill rates for dermatology, medicine-emergency medicine, neurological surgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation (categorical), integrated plastic surgery, and thoracic surgery. Other competitive specialties included medicine-pediatrics, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and vascular surgery.

Participation of international medical school students and graduates (IMGs) went up in 2020, breaking a 3-year cycle of decline. More than 61% matched to first-year positions, 2.5 percentage points higher than 2019 – and the highest match rate since 1990. “IMGs generally are having the most success matching to primary care specialties, including internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics,” Dr. Lamb said.
 

Primary care benefits from DO growth

DO candidates also helped drive up the numbers in primary care.

Internal medicine offered 8,697 categorical positions, 581 more than in 2019, reflecting a fill rate of 95.7%. More than 40% of these slots were filled by U.S. MD seniors, a category that’s seen decreases over the last 5 years, due in part to administrative and financial burdens associated with primary care internal medicine.

“In addition, the steady growth of internal medicine has increased the overall number of training positions available, and with the growth of other specialties in parallel, it has also likely had some effect on decreasing the percentage of U.S. graduates entering the field,” Phil Masters, MD, vice president of membership and global engagement at the American College of Physicians, said in an interview.

However, fill rates for U.S. DO seniors reached 16% in 2020, a notable rise from 6.9% in 2016. “As the number of osteopathic trainees increases, we are happy that more are choosing internal medicine as a career path,” Dr. Masters said, adding that the slightly different training and practice orientation of osteopathic physicians “complements that of their allopathic colleagues, and add richness to the many different practice settings that internal medicine encompasses.”

A record number of DO seniors also matched in family medicine (1,392), accounting for nearly 30% of all applicants. The single match led to an important net increase in filled family medicine residency positions, Clif Knight, MD, senior vice president for education at the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.

Overall, family medicine filled 92.5% of its 4,662 positions, 555 more than in 2019. The results show that family medicine and primary care are on solid footing, Dr. Knight said. “We are excited that the number of filled family medicine residency positions increased from last year. This is important as we work to meet the significant primary care workforce shortage,” he added.

In other specialties:

• Pediatrics filled more than 98% of its 2,864 categorical positions, 17 more than in 2019. U.S. MD seniors filled 1,731 (60.4%) of those slots. “We’re very excited about our newly matched pediatricians,” Sara “Sally” H. Goza, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an interview. “The coronavirus outbreak has shown us how valuable the pediatric workforce is and how much we’re needed.’’
• Dermatology offered 478 positions, achieving a fill rate of 98.1%. “Looking at our own program’s Match results, I feel very satisfied that we are accomplishing our specific aim to serve rural populations and to create a diverse workforce in dermatology,” Erik Stratman, MD, an expert on dermatologic education in U.S. medical schools/residency programs, and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology, said in an interview. “It’s nice to see the fruits of the specialty’s expanding efforts to get the right people in the specialty who reflect those populations we serve.”
• Obstetrics-gynecology offered 1,433 first-year positions – 48 more than in 2019 – achieving a fill rate of 99.8%, with U.S. MD seniors filling more than 75% of those slots.
• Neurology filled more than 97.5% of 682 offered positions in 2020. However, U.S. MD seniors represented just under half of those filled positions (46.5%).
• Psychiatry offered 1,858 positions in 2020, achieving an overall fill rate of 98.9%, 61.2% for U.S. MD seniors.
• Emergency Medicine filled 99.5% of the 2,665 positions offered this year. In this profession, the U.S. MD fill rate was 64.3%. These new interns are sorely needed at a time when EM physicians are on the front lines of a pandemic, Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association, said in an interview.

Unifying allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) applicants for the first time in a single matching program, 2020’s Match Day results underscored the continuing growth of DOs in the field, boosting numbers in primary care medicine and the Match as a whole.

Gains, trends in 2020 match

Growth in U.S. DO senior participation also pushed this year’s Match to record highs. There were 6,581 U.S. DO medical school seniors who submitted rank order lists, 1,103 more than in 2019. Among those seniors, 90.7% matched to PGY-1 positions, driving the match rate for U.S. DO seniors up 2.6 percentage points from 2019.

Since 2016, the number of U.S. DO seniors seeking positions has risen by 3,599 or 120%. “Of course, the number of U.S. MD seniors who submitted program choices was also record-high: 19,326, an increase of 401 over 2019. The 93.7% match rate to first-year positions for this group has remained very consistent for many years,” Dr. Lamb said.

Among individual specialties, the NRMP reported extremely high fill rates for dermatology, medicine-emergency medicine, neurological surgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation (categorical), integrated plastic surgery, and thoracic surgery. Other competitive specialties included medicine-pediatrics, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and vascular surgery.

Participation of international medical school students and graduates (IMGs) went up in 2020, breaking a 3-year cycle of decline. More than 61% matched to first-year positions, 2.5 percentage points higher than 2019 – and the highest match rate since 1990. “IMGs generally are having the most success matching to primary care specialties, including internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics,” Dr. Lamb said.
 

Primary care benefits from DO growth

DO candidates also helped drive up the numbers in primary care.

Internal medicine offered 8,697 categorical positions, 581 more than in 2019, reflecting a fill rate of 95.7%. More than 40% of these slots were filled by U.S. MD seniors, a category that’s seen decreases over the last 5 years, due in part to administrative and financial burdens associated with primary care internal medicine.

“In addition, the steady growth of internal medicine has increased the overall number of training positions available, and with the growth of other specialties in parallel, it has also likely had some effect on decreasing the percentage of U.S. graduates entering the field,” Phil Masters, MD, vice president of membership and global engagement at the American College of Physicians, said in an interview.

However, fill rates for U.S. DO seniors reached 16% in 2020, a notable rise from 6.9% in 2016. “As the number of osteopathic trainees increases, we are happy that more are choosing internal medicine as a career path,” Dr. Masters said, adding that the slightly different training and practice orientation of osteopathic physicians “complements that of their allopathic colleagues, and add richness to the many different practice settings that internal medicine encompasses.”

A record number of DO seniors also matched in family medicine (1,392), accounting for nearly 30% of all applicants. The single match led to an important net increase in filled family medicine residency positions, Clif Knight, MD, senior vice president for education at the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.

Overall, family medicine filled 92.5% of its 4,662 positions, 555 more than in 2019. The results show that family medicine and primary care are on solid footing, Dr. Knight said. “We are excited that the number of filled family medicine residency positions increased from last year. This is important as we work to meet the significant primary care workforce shortage,” he added.

In other specialties:

• Pediatrics filled more than 98% of its 2,864 categorical positions, 17 more than in 2019. U.S. MD seniors filled 1,731 (60.4%) of those slots. “We’re very excited about our newly matched pediatricians,” Sara “Sally” H. Goza, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an interview. “The coronavirus outbreak has shown us how valuable the pediatric workforce is and how much we’re needed.’’
• Dermatology offered 478 positions, achieving a fill rate of 98.1%. “Looking at our own program’s Match results, I feel very satisfied that we are accomplishing our specific aim to serve rural populations and to create a diverse workforce in dermatology,” Erik Stratman, MD, an expert on dermatologic education in U.S. medical schools/residency programs, and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology, said in an interview. “It’s nice to see the fruits of the specialty’s expanding efforts to get the right people in the specialty who reflect those populations we serve.”
• Obstetrics-gynecology offered 1,433 first-year positions – 48 more than in 2019 – achieving a fill rate of 99.8%, with U.S. MD seniors filling more than 75% of those slots.
• Neurology filled more than 97.5% of 682 offered positions in 2020. However, U.S. MD seniors represented just under half of those filled positions (46.5%).
• Psychiatry offered 1,858 positions in 2020, achieving an overall fill rate of 98.9%, 61.2% for U.S. MD seniors.
• Emergency Medicine filled 99.5% of the 2,665 positions offered this year. In this profession, the U.S. MD fill rate was 64.3%. These new interns are sorely needed at a time when EM physicians are on the front lines of a pandemic, Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association, said in an interview.

Unifying allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) applicants for the first time in a single matching program, 2020’s Match Day results underscored the continuing growth of DOs in the field, boosting numbers in primary care medicine and the Match as a whole.

Gains, trends in 2020 match

Growth in U.S. DO senior participation also pushed this year’s Match to record highs. There were 6,581 U.S. DO medical school seniors who submitted rank order lists, 1,103 more than in 2019. Among those seniors, 90.7% matched to PGY-1 positions, driving the match rate for U.S. DO seniors up 2.6 percentage points from 2019.

Since 2016, the number of U.S. DO seniors seeking positions has risen by 3,599 or 120%. “Of course, the number of U.S. MD seniors who submitted program choices was also record-high: 19,326, an increase of 401 over 2019. The 93.7% match rate to first-year positions for this group has remained very consistent for many years,” Dr. Lamb said.

Among individual specialties, the NRMP reported extremely high fill rates for dermatology, medicine-emergency medicine, neurological surgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation (categorical), integrated plastic surgery, and thoracic surgery. Other competitive specialties included medicine-pediatrics, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and vascular surgery.

Participation of international medical school students and graduates (IMGs) went up in 2020, breaking a 3-year cycle of decline. More than 61% matched to first-year positions, 2.5 percentage points higher than 2019 – and the highest match rate since 1990. “IMGs generally are having the most success matching to primary care specialties, including internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics,” Dr. Lamb said.
 

Primary care benefits from DO growth

DO candidates also helped drive up the numbers in primary care.

Internal medicine offered 8,697 categorical positions, 581 more than in 2019, reflecting a fill rate of 95.7%. More than 40% of these slots were filled by U.S. MD seniors, a category that’s seen decreases over the last 5 years, due in part to administrative and financial burdens associated with primary care internal medicine.

“In addition, the steady growth of internal medicine has increased the overall number of training positions available, and with the growth of other specialties in parallel, it has also likely had some effect on decreasing the percentage of U.S. graduates entering the field,” Phil Masters, MD, vice president of membership and global engagement at the American College of Physicians, said in an interview.

However, fill rates for U.S. DO seniors reached 16% in 2020, a notable rise from 6.9% in 2016. “As the number of osteopathic trainees increases, we are happy that more are choosing internal medicine as a career path,” Dr. Masters said, adding that the slightly different training and practice orientation of osteopathic physicians “complements that of their allopathic colleagues, and add richness to the many different practice settings that internal medicine encompasses.”

A record number of DO seniors also matched in family medicine (1,392), accounting for nearly 30% of all applicants. The single match led to an important net increase in filled family medicine residency positions, Clif Knight, MD, senior vice president for education at the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in an interview.

Overall, family medicine filled 92.5% of its 4,662 positions, 555 more than in 2019. The results show that family medicine and primary care are on solid footing, Dr. Knight said. “We are excited that the number of filled family medicine residency positions increased from last year. This is important as we work to meet the significant primary care workforce shortage,” he added.

In other specialties:

• Pediatrics filled more than 98% of its 2,864 categorical positions, 17 more than in 2019. U.S. MD seniors filled 1,731 (60.4%) of those slots. “We’re very excited about our newly matched pediatricians,” Sara “Sally” H. Goza, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in an interview. “The coronavirus outbreak has shown us how valuable the pediatric workforce is and how much we’re needed.’’
• Dermatology offered 478 positions, achieving a fill rate of 98.1%. “Looking at our own program’s Match results, I feel very satisfied that we are accomplishing our specific aim to serve rural populations and to create a diverse workforce in dermatology,” Erik Stratman, MD, an expert on dermatologic education in U.S. medical schools/residency programs, and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology, said in an interview. “It’s nice to see the fruits of the specialty’s expanding efforts to get the right people in the specialty who reflect those populations we serve.”
• Obstetrics-gynecology offered 1,433 first-year positions – 48 more than in 2019 – achieving a fill rate of 99.8%, with U.S. MD seniors filling more than 75% of those slots.
• Neurology filled more than 97.5% of 682 offered positions in 2020. However, U.S. MD seniors represented just under half of those filled positions (46.5%).
• Psychiatry offered 1,858 positions in 2020, achieving an overall fill rate of 98.9%, 61.2% for U.S. MD seniors.
• Emergency Medicine filled 99.5% of the 2,665 positions offered this year. In this profession, the U.S. MD fill rate was 64.3%. These new interns are sorely needed at a time when EM physicians are on the front lines of a pandemic, Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association, said in an interview.