Before the onslaught of COVID-19, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle had another infectious disease worry: an “unprecedented” outbreak of measles.

“In 2019, we saw the most measles cases in any year since the 1990s,” said Sara Marquis, MPH, a clinical research coordinator at the center. The worry, she says, was that various oncology treatments, such as bone marrow transplantations and assorted biologics, “may leave cancer patients severely immunosuppressed” and thus vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Measles-related illness is typically not severe but can lead to pneumonia, deafness, and death, even in immunocompetent people, Ms. Marquis added.

So in 2019, a team at Fred Hutchinson initiated a study to get a sense of immunity to measles among patients with cancer.

They now report that of a group of 900-plus patients, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. That’s “significantly more” than the general population, in which about 8% of people lack these antibodies, Ms. Marquis said.

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, also found that 38% lacked protection against the less-worrisome infectious disease of mumps, which is more than the 13% found in the general population.

“The scary thing about measles is that it is one of the most contagious diseases known,” Ms. Marquis told this news organization, adding that it is about twice as contagious as the COVID-19 Delta variant.

And it’s not just in the state of Washington. “We’re seeing it more and more in the community,” as various outbreaks continue to happen, she said.

“Deficits in protective antibodies underscore patients’ increased risk during outbreaks and emphasize the need for community-based efforts to increase herd immunity to protect this population,” the study authors conclude.

In short, administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, introduced in 1963, must continue universally, they said

“We’ve had so many incredible advances in cancer treatment in recent years. … it would be devastating to see something like measles, which is a vaccine-preventable disease, come through and negate those efforts,” said study coauthor Elizabeth Krantz, MS, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson.

The health care teams and family caregivers of patients with cancer should also make sure they are vaccinated, said Ms. Marquis. However, some patients may not be able to get a measles booster vaccine because it is a live vaccine or because they cannot generate enough antibodies for it to be protective, she explained.
 

Three subgroups more likely to have deficits

The new study, which is one of the first to measure measles and mumps seroprevalence among patients with cancer in the modern era of cancer treatment, also identified three subgroups that more commonly had immunity deficits:  those aged 30-59 years; those with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and those who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant.

In the study, residual clinical plasma samples were obtained from 959 consecutive patients with cancer at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and Fred Hutchinson in August 2019. These samples were tested for measles and mumps IgG by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In all, 60% of patients had a solid tumor and 40% had a blood cancer.

As noted above, the seroprevalence of measles antibodies was 0.75 and the seroprevalence of mumps antibodies was 0.62.

A study author explained why the study included mumps, a less threatening infection.

“We assessed mumps in this study out of interest to compare response in the MMR vaccine component – particularly as we could assess a potent vaccine (measles) versus one that has a weaker immunologic response (mumps). We remain worried about outbreaks of mumps as MMR vaccination rates drop across the U.S.,” wrote Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson, in an email.

Vaccination vigilance is one of the study’s messages. “We all need to do our part to make sure we are up to date with our vaccinations so we can make sure we protect those who are vulnerable,” said Ms. Krantz.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Multiple study authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

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

Before the onslaught of COVID-19, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle had another infectious disease worry: an “unprecedented” outbreak of measles.

“In 2019, we saw the most measles cases in any year since the 1990s,” said Sara Marquis, MPH, a clinical research coordinator at the center. The worry, she says, was that various oncology treatments, such as bone marrow transplantations and assorted biologics, “may leave cancer patients severely immunosuppressed” and thus vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Measles-related illness is typically not severe but can lead to pneumonia, deafness, and death, even in immunocompetent people, Ms. Marquis added.

So in 2019, a team at Fred Hutchinson initiated a study to get a sense of immunity to measles among patients with cancer.

They now report that of a group of 900-plus patients, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. That’s “significantly more” than the general population, in which about 8% of people lack these antibodies, Ms. Marquis said.

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, also found that 38% lacked protection against the less-worrisome infectious disease of mumps, which is more than the 13% found in the general population.

“The scary thing about measles is that it is one of the most contagious diseases known,” Ms. Marquis told this news organization, adding that it is about twice as contagious as the COVID-19 Delta variant.

And it’s not just in the state of Washington. “We’re seeing it more and more in the community,” as various outbreaks continue to happen, she said.

“Deficits in protective antibodies underscore patients’ increased risk during outbreaks and emphasize the need for community-based efforts to increase herd immunity to protect this population,” the study authors conclude.

In short, administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, introduced in 1963, must continue universally, they said

“We’ve had so many incredible advances in cancer treatment in recent years. … it would be devastating to see something like measles, which is a vaccine-preventable disease, come through and negate those efforts,” said study coauthor Elizabeth Krantz, MS, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson.

The health care teams and family caregivers of patients with cancer should also make sure they are vaccinated, said Ms. Marquis. However, some patients may not be able to get a measles booster vaccine because it is a live vaccine or because they cannot generate enough antibodies for it to be protective, she explained.
 

Three subgroups more likely to have deficits

The new study, which is one of the first to measure measles and mumps seroprevalence among patients with cancer in the modern era of cancer treatment, also identified three subgroups that more commonly had immunity deficits:  those aged 30-59 years; those with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and those who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant.

In the study, residual clinical plasma samples were obtained from 959 consecutive patients with cancer at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and Fred Hutchinson in August 2019. These samples were tested for measles and mumps IgG by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In all, 60% of patients had a solid tumor and 40% had a blood cancer.

As noted above, the seroprevalence of measles antibodies was 0.75 and the seroprevalence of mumps antibodies was 0.62.

A study author explained why the study included mumps, a less threatening infection.

“We assessed mumps in this study out of interest to compare response in the MMR vaccine component – particularly as we could assess a potent vaccine (measles) versus one that has a weaker immunologic response (mumps). We remain worried about outbreaks of mumps as MMR vaccination rates drop across the U.S.,” wrote Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson, in an email.

Vaccination vigilance is one of the study’s messages. “We all need to do our part to make sure we are up to date with our vaccinations so we can make sure we protect those who are vulnerable,” said Ms. Krantz.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Multiple study authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

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

Before the onslaught of COVID-19, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle had another infectious disease worry: an “unprecedented” outbreak of measles.

“In 2019, we saw the most measles cases in any year since the 1990s,” said Sara Marquis, MPH, a clinical research coordinator at the center. The worry, she says, was that various oncology treatments, such as bone marrow transplantations and assorted biologics, “may leave cancer patients severely immunosuppressed” and thus vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Measles-related illness is typically not severe but can lead to pneumonia, deafness, and death, even in immunocompetent people, Ms. Marquis added.

So in 2019, a team at Fred Hutchinson initiated a study to get a sense of immunity to measles among patients with cancer.

They now report that of a group of 900-plus patients, 25% lacked protective antibodies for measles. That’s “significantly more” than the general population, in which about 8% of people lack these antibodies, Ms. Marquis said.

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, also found that 38% lacked protection against the less-worrisome infectious disease of mumps, which is more than the 13% found in the general population.

“The scary thing about measles is that it is one of the most contagious diseases known,” Ms. Marquis told this news organization, adding that it is about twice as contagious as the COVID-19 Delta variant.

And it’s not just in the state of Washington. “We’re seeing it more and more in the community,” as various outbreaks continue to happen, she said.

“Deficits in protective antibodies underscore patients’ increased risk during outbreaks and emphasize the need for community-based efforts to increase herd immunity to protect this population,” the study authors conclude.

In short, administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, introduced in 1963, must continue universally, they said

“We’ve had so many incredible advances in cancer treatment in recent years. … it would be devastating to see something like measles, which is a vaccine-preventable disease, come through and negate those efforts,” said study coauthor Elizabeth Krantz, MS, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson.

The health care teams and family caregivers of patients with cancer should also make sure they are vaccinated, said Ms. Marquis. However, some patients may not be able to get a measles booster vaccine because it is a live vaccine or because they cannot generate enough antibodies for it to be protective, she explained.
 

Three subgroups more likely to have deficits

The new study, which is one of the first to measure measles and mumps seroprevalence among patients with cancer in the modern era of cancer treatment, also identified three subgroups that more commonly had immunity deficits:  those aged 30-59 years; those with hematologic malignant neoplasms, and those who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant.

In the study, residual clinical plasma samples were obtained from 959 consecutive patients with cancer at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and Fred Hutchinson in August 2019. These samples were tested for measles and mumps IgG by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In all, 60% of patients had a solid tumor and 40% had a blood cancer.

As noted above, the seroprevalence of measles antibodies was 0.75 and the seroprevalence of mumps antibodies was 0.62.

A study author explained why the study included mumps, a less threatening infection.

“We assessed mumps in this study out of interest to compare response in the MMR vaccine component – particularly as we could assess a potent vaccine (measles) versus one that has a weaker immunologic response (mumps). We remain worried about outbreaks of mumps as MMR vaccination rates drop across the U.S.,” wrote Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson, in an email.

Vaccination vigilance is one of the study’s messages. “We all need to do our part to make sure we are up to date with our vaccinations so we can make sure we protect those who are vulnerable,” said Ms. Krantz.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Multiple study authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have announced an outbreak of at least 15 Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with contaminated ultrasound gel used to guide invasive procedures as well as an unrelated outbreak of Burkholderia pseudomallei that caused two deaths.

The procedures involved in the B. cepacia outbreak included placement of both central and peripheral intravenous catheters and paracentesis (removal of peritoneal fluid from the abdominal cavity). Cases have occurred in several states.

Further testing has shown the presence of Burkholderia stabilis, a member of B. cepacia complex (Bcc), in four lots of unopened bottles of MediChoice M500812 ultrasound gel. Eco-Med Pharmaceuticals of Etobicoke, Ont., the parent manufacturer, has issued a recall of MediChoice M500812 or Eco-Gel 200 with the following lot numbers: B029, B030, B031, B032, B040, B041, B048, B055. A similar outbreak occurred in Canada.

Some of these cases resulted in bloodstream infections. Further details are not yet available. Bcc infections have ranged from asymptomatic to life-threatening pneumonias, particularly in patients with cystic fibrosis. Other risk factors include immunosuppression, mechanical ventilation, and the use of other invasive venous or urinary catheters.

Kiran M. Perkins, MD, MPH, outbreak lead with the CDC’s Prevention Research Branch, said in an interview via email that automated systems such as Vitek might have trouble identifying the organism as “the system may only reveal the microbial species at the genus level but not at the species level, and/or it may have difficulty distinguishing between members of closely related group members.”

In the CDC’s experience, “most facilities do not conduct further species identification.” The agency added that it cannot tell if there has been any increase in cases associated with COVID-19, as they are not notifiable diseases and the “CDC does not systematically collect information on B. cepacia complex infections.”

Rodney Rohde, PhD, professor of clinical laboratory science and chair of the clinical laboratory science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, told this news organization via email that Burkholderia’s “detection in the manufacturing process is difficult, and product recalls are frequent.” He added, “A recent review by the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. found that almost 40% of contamination reports in both sterile and nonsterile pharmaceutical products were caused by Bcc bacteria.” Another problem is that they often create biofilms, so “they are tenacious environmental colonizers of medical equipment and surfaces in general.”

There have been many other outbreaks as a result to B. cepacia complex. Because it is often in the water supply used in pharmaceutical manufacturing and is resistant to preservatives, the FDA cautions that it poses a risk of contamination in all nonsterile, water-based drug products.

Recalls have included contaminated antiseptics, such as povidone iodine, benzalkonium chloride, and chlorhexidine gluconate. Contamination in manufacturing may not be uniform, and only some samples may be affected. Antiseptic mouthwashes have also been affected. So have nonbacterial soaps and docusate (a stool softener) solutions, and various personal care products, including nasal sprays, lotions, simethicone gas relief drops (Mylicon), and baby wipes.

Although Bcc are considered “objectionable organisms,” there have been no strong or consistent standards for their detection from the U.S. Pharmacopeia, and some manufacturers reportedly underestimate the consequences of contamination. The FDA issued a guidance to manufacturers in 2017 on quality assurance and cleaning procedures. This is particularly important since preservatives are ineffective against Bcc, and sterility has to be insured at each step of production.

Burkholderia isolates are generally resistant to commonly used antibiotics. Treatment might therefore include a combination of two drugs (to try to limit the emergence of more resistance) such as ceftazidime, piperacillin, meropenem with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or a beta-lactam plus aminoglycoside.

Interestingly, an outbreak of Burkholderia pseudomallei was just reported by the CDC as well. This is a related gram-negative bacillus which is quite uncommon in the United States. It causes melioidosis, usually a tropical infection, which presents with nonspecific symptoms or serious pneumonia, abscesses, or bloodstream infections.

Four cases have been identified this year in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, two of them fatal. It is usually acquired from soil or water. By genomic analysis, the four cases are felt to be related, but no common source of exposure has been identified. They also appear to be closely related to South Asian strains, although none of the patients had traveled internationally. Prolonged antibiotic therapy with ceftazidime or meropenem, followed by 3-6 months of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, is often required.

In his email, Dr. Rohde stated, “Melioidosis causes cough, chest pain, high fever, headache or unexplained weight loss, but it may take 2-3 weeks for symptoms of melioidosis to appear after a person’s initial exposure to the bacteria. So, one could see how this might be overlooked as COVID per symptoms and per the limitations of laboratory identification.”

It’s essential for clinicians to recognize that automated microbiology identification systems can misidentify B. pseudomallei as B. cepacia and to ask the lab for more specialized molecular diagnostics, particularly when relatively unusual organisms are isolated.

Candice Hoffmann, a public affairs specialist at the CDC, told this news organization that “clinicians should consider melioidosis as a differential diagnosis in both adult and pediatric patients who are suspected to have a bacterial infection (pneumonia, sepsis, meningitis, wound) and are not responding to antibacterial treatment, even if they have not traveled outside of the continental United States.”

Dr. Rohde has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have announced an outbreak of at least 15 Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with contaminated ultrasound gel used to guide invasive procedures as well as an unrelated outbreak of Burkholderia pseudomallei that caused two deaths.

The procedures involved in the B. cepacia outbreak included placement of both central and peripheral intravenous catheters and paracentesis (removal of peritoneal fluid from the abdominal cavity). Cases have occurred in several states.

Further testing has shown the presence of Burkholderia stabilis, a member of B. cepacia complex (Bcc), in four lots of unopened bottles of MediChoice M500812 ultrasound gel. Eco-Med Pharmaceuticals of Etobicoke, Ont., the parent manufacturer, has issued a recall of MediChoice M500812 or Eco-Gel 200 with the following lot numbers: B029, B030, B031, B032, B040, B041, B048, B055. A similar outbreak occurred in Canada.

Some of these cases resulted in bloodstream infections. Further details are not yet available. Bcc infections have ranged from asymptomatic to life-threatening pneumonias, particularly in patients with cystic fibrosis. Other risk factors include immunosuppression, mechanical ventilation, and the use of other invasive venous or urinary catheters.

Kiran M. Perkins, MD, MPH, outbreak lead with the CDC’s Prevention Research Branch, said in an interview via email that automated systems such as Vitek might have trouble identifying the organism as “the system may only reveal the microbial species at the genus level but not at the species level, and/or it may have difficulty distinguishing between members of closely related group members.”

In the CDC’s experience, “most facilities do not conduct further species identification.” The agency added that it cannot tell if there has been any increase in cases associated with COVID-19, as they are not notifiable diseases and the “CDC does not systematically collect information on B. cepacia complex infections.”

Rodney Rohde, PhD, professor of clinical laboratory science and chair of the clinical laboratory science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, told this news organization via email that Burkholderia’s “detection in the manufacturing process is difficult, and product recalls are frequent.” He added, “A recent review by the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. found that almost 40% of contamination reports in both sterile and nonsterile pharmaceutical products were caused by Bcc bacteria.” Another problem is that they often create biofilms, so “they are tenacious environmental colonizers of medical equipment and surfaces in general.”

There have been many other outbreaks as a result to B. cepacia complex. Because it is often in the water supply used in pharmaceutical manufacturing and is resistant to preservatives, the FDA cautions that it poses a risk of contamination in all nonsterile, water-based drug products.

Recalls have included contaminated antiseptics, such as povidone iodine, benzalkonium chloride, and chlorhexidine gluconate. Contamination in manufacturing may not be uniform, and only some samples may be affected. Antiseptic mouthwashes have also been affected. So have nonbacterial soaps and docusate (a stool softener) solutions, and various personal care products, including nasal sprays, lotions, simethicone gas relief drops (Mylicon), and baby wipes.

Although Bcc are considered “objectionable organisms,” there have been no strong or consistent standards for their detection from the U.S. Pharmacopeia, and some manufacturers reportedly underestimate the consequences of contamination. The FDA issued a guidance to manufacturers in 2017 on quality assurance and cleaning procedures. This is particularly important since preservatives are ineffective against Bcc, and sterility has to be insured at each step of production.

Burkholderia isolates are generally resistant to commonly used antibiotics. Treatment might therefore include a combination of two drugs (to try to limit the emergence of more resistance) such as ceftazidime, piperacillin, meropenem with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or a beta-lactam plus aminoglycoside.

Interestingly, an outbreak of Burkholderia pseudomallei was just reported by the CDC as well. This is a related gram-negative bacillus which is quite uncommon in the United States. It causes melioidosis, usually a tropical infection, which presents with nonspecific symptoms or serious pneumonia, abscesses, or bloodstream infections.

Four cases have been identified this year in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, two of them fatal. It is usually acquired from soil or water. By genomic analysis, the four cases are felt to be related, but no common source of exposure has been identified. They also appear to be closely related to South Asian strains, although none of the patients had traveled internationally. Prolonged antibiotic therapy with ceftazidime or meropenem, followed by 3-6 months of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, is often required.

In his email, Dr. Rohde stated, “Melioidosis causes cough, chest pain, high fever, headache or unexplained weight loss, but it may take 2-3 weeks for symptoms of melioidosis to appear after a person’s initial exposure to the bacteria. So, one could see how this might be overlooked as COVID per symptoms and per the limitations of laboratory identification.”

It’s essential for clinicians to recognize that automated microbiology identification systems can misidentify B. pseudomallei as B. cepacia and to ask the lab for more specialized molecular diagnostics, particularly when relatively unusual organisms are isolated.

Candice Hoffmann, a public affairs specialist at the CDC, told this news organization that “clinicians should consider melioidosis as a differential diagnosis in both adult and pediatric patients who are suspected to have a bacterial infection (pneumonia, sepsis, meningitis, wound) and are not responding to antibacterial treatment, even if they have not traveled outside of the continental United States.”

Dr. Rohde has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have announced an outbreak of at least 15 Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with contaminated ultrasound gel used to guide invasive procedures as well as an unrelated outbreak of Burkholderia pseudomallei that caused two deaths.

The procedures involved in the B. cepacia outbreak included placement of both central and peripheral intravenous catheters and paracentesis (removal of peritoneal fluid from the abdominal cavity). Cases have occurred in several states.

Further testing has shown the presence of Burkholderia stabilis, a member of B. cepacia complex (Bcc), in four lots of unopened bottles of MediChoice M500812 ultrasound gel. Eco-Med Pharmaceuticals of Etobicoke, Ont., the parent manufacturer, has issued a recall of MediChoice M500812 or Eco-Gel 200 with the following lot numbers: B029, B030, B031, B032, B040, B041, B048, B055. A similar outbreak occurred in Canada.

Some of these cases resulted in bloodstream infections. Further details are not yet available. Bcc infections have ranged from asymptomatic to life-threatening pneumonias, particularly in patients with cystic fibrosis. Other risk factors include immunosuppression, mechanical ventilation, and the use of other invasive venous or urinary catheters.

Kiran M. Perkins, MD, MPH, outbreak lead with the CDC’s Prevention Research Branch, said in an interview via email that automated systems such as Vitek might have trouble identifying the organism as “the system may only reveal the microbial species at the genus level but not at the species level, and/or it may have difficulty distinguishing between members of closely related group members.”

In the CDC’s experience, “most facilities do not conduct further species identification.” The agency added that it cannot tell if there has been any increase in cases associated with COVID-19, as they are not notifiable diseases and the “CDC does not systematically collect information on B. cepacia complex infections.”

Rodney Rohde, PhD, professor of clinical laboratory science and chair of the clinical laboratory science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, told this news organization via email that Burkholderia’s “detection in the manufacturing process is difficult, and product recalls are frequent.” He added, “A recent review by the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. found that almost 40% of contamination reports in both sterile and nonsterile pharmaceutical products were caused by Bcc bacteria.” Another problem is that they often create biofilms, so “they are tenacious environmental colonizers of medical equipment and surfaces in general.”

There have been many other outbreaks as a result to B. cepacia complex. Because it is often in the water supply used in pharmaceutical manufacturing and is resistant to preservatives, the FDA cautions that it poses a risk of contamination in all nonsterile, water-based drug products.

Recalls have included contaminated antiseptics, such as povidone iodine, benzalkonium chloride, and chlorhexidine gluconate. Contamination in manufacturing may not be uniform, and only some samples may be affected. Antiseptic mouthwashes have also been affected. So have nonbacterial soaps and docusate (a stool softener) solutions, and various personal care products, including nasal sprays, lotions, simethicone gas relief drops (Mylicon), and baby wipes.

Although Bcc are considered “objectionable organisms,” there have been no strong or consistent standards for their detection from the U.S. Pharmacopeia, and some manufacturers reportedly underestimate the consequences of contamination. The FDA issued a guidance to manufacturers in 2017 on quality assurance and cleaning procedures. This is particularly important since preservatives are ineffective against Bcc, and sterility has to be insured at each step of production.

Burkholderia isolates are generally resistant to commonly used antibiotics. Treatment might therefore include a combination of two drugs (to try to limit the emergence of more resistance) such as ceftazidime, piperacillin, meropenem with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or a beta-lactam plus aminoglycoside.

Interestingly, an outbreak of Burkholderia pseudomallei was just reported by the CDC as well. This is a related gram-negative bacillus which is quite uncommon in the United States. It causes melioidosis, usually a tropical infection, which presents with nonspecific symptoms or serious pneumonia, abscesses, or bloodstream infections.

Four cases have been identified this year in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, two of them fatal. It is usually acquired from soil or water. By genomic analysis, the four cases are felt to be related, but no common source of exposure has been identified. They also appear to be closely related to South Asian strains, although none of the patients had traveled internationally. Prolonged antibiotic therapy with ceftazidime or meropenem, followed by 3-6 months of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, is often required.

In his email, Dr. Rohde stated, “Melioidosis causes cough, chest pain, high fever, headache or unexplained weight loss, but it may take 2-3 weeks for symptoms of melioidosis to appear after a person’s initial exposure to the bacteria. So, one could see how this might be overlooked as COVID per symptoms and per the limitations of laboratory identification.”

It’s essential for clinicians to recognize that automated microbiology identification systems can misidentify B. pseudomallei as B. cepacia and to ask the lab for more specialized molecular diagnostics, particularly when relatively unusual organisms are isolated.

Candice Hoffmann, a public affairs specialist at the CDC, told this news organization that “clinicians should consider melioidosis as a differential diagnosis in both adult and pediatric patients who are suspected to have a bacterial infection (pneumonia, sepsis, meningitis, wound) and are not responding to antibacterial treatment, even if they have not traveled outside of the continental United States.”

Dr. Rohde has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), which represents over 100,000 pathologists and medical laboratory professionals, has called for a nationwide vaccination mandate. It is the first medical specialty society to do so, ASCP chief executive officer Blair Holladay, PhD, said in an interview.

However, the American Lung Association this week said it supports President Biden’s call for businesses to require their employees to be vaccinated. In addition, more than 50 medical societies, including ASCP, recently said they support vaccination mandates for health care workers.

In a position statement released Wednesday, ASCP recommended that every eligible American be vaccinated. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is soon expected to fully approve at least one COVID-19 vaccine, and when it does, we urge that vaccination requirements become the norm,” the society said.

Second, ASCP noted that at least 16 states have enacted some form of a ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates or related requirements. These include blocking employment-based mandates, school vaccination or mask requirements, and vaccine passport requirements.

“These laws prolong the pandemic and threaten the health and safety of every American. They should be repealed or overturned immediately,” the association stated.

Third, ASCP said, it supports the guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that masks should be worn indoors in public places in areas of substantial or high COVID-19 transmission.

“Before more people die, our elected leaders need to take serious and aggressive action to ensure that Americans get vaccinated, so we can end the pandemic, end patient and family suffering, end the fatalities, and get back to the lives we had before COVID-19,” the statement concluded.
 

Laboratories have to focus on COVID again

In his interview, Dr. Holladay noted that the eruption of the Delta variant across the country has again forced laboratories to focus on COVID-19 testing at the expense of necessary tests related to other diseases.

“Because 7 of 10 medical decisions depend on the laboratory, anything that interferes with that interferes with the needs of patient care, including preventive, chronic, and acute care services,” he said.

This is a major reason, he said, for ASCP to support a national vaccination mandate. “People have postponed treatment because of the inability to access medical care [for other conditions],” he noted. The same is true for preventive or diagnostic care such as biopsies for breast cancer and colonoscopies, he added.

“In many parts of the country, the throughput of COVID tests made it difficult for us to focus on tests for other acute conditions. It overwhelmed the laboratory personnel in terms of the number of tests being run.”
 

Returning to the ‘dark days’

This was a significant issue in the earlier part of the pandemic, Dr. Holladay recalled. The shortage of non-COVID lab capacity eased in the spring and early summer of 2021, when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available.

“But with the Delta variant, we’re going back to those dark days and creating the same bottleneck that we saw in the beginning,” he said.

Although the situation is worse in some states than others, Dr. Holladay added, some of the hardest-hit states like Florida and Texas have very large populations.

“This is not just about doctors, nurses, pathologists, and laboratory personnel being exhausted,” commented Kimberly Sanford, MD, president of ASCP, in a press release. “Laboratory medicine is absolutely necessary for accurate and timely diagnosis of disease, infection control, and effective treatment planning. It is an essential part of the health care system and often overwhelmed by the increasing number of coronavirus tests requiring immediate analysis.

“Such testing takes time and disproportionately consumes scarce equipment and other resources. It means those with cancer and other life-threatening conditions face serious delays in diagnosis and treatment. It delays medical diagnoses, erects barriers to preventative care, and prevents us from focusing on the significant health care needs of the population at large.”

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

The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), which represents over 100,000 pathologists and medical laboratory professionals, has called for a nationwide vaccination mandate. It is the first medical specialty society to do so, ASCP chief executive officer Blair Holladay, PhD, said in an interview.

However, the American Lung Association this week said it supports President Biden’s call for businesses to require their employees to be vaccinated. In addition, more than 50 medical societies, including ASCP, recently said they support vaccination mandates for health care workers.

In a position statement released Wednesday, ASCP recommended that every eligible American be vaccinated. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is soon expected to fully approve at least one COVID-19 vaccine, and when it does, we urge that vaccination requirements become the norm,” the society said.

Second, ASCP noted that at least 16 states have enacted some form of a ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates or related requirements. These include blocking employment-based mandates, school vaccination or mask requirements, and vaccine passport requirements.

“These laws prolong the pandemic and threaten the health and safety of every American. They should be repealed or overturned immediately,” the association stated.

Third, ASCP said, it supports the guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that masks should be worn indoors in public places in areas of substantial or high COVID-19 transmission.

“Before more people die, our elected leaders need to take serious and aggressive action to ensure that Americans get vaccinated, so we can end the pandemic, end patient and family suffering, end the fatalities, and get back to the lives we had before COVID-19,” the statement concluded.
 

Laboratories have to focus on COVID again

In his interview, Dr. Holladay noted that the eruption of the Delta variant across the country has again forced laboratories to focus on COVID-19 testing at the expense of necessary tests related to other diseases.

“Because 7 of 10 medical decisions depend on the laboratory, anything that interferes with that interferes with the needs of patient care, including preventive, chronic, and acute care services,” he said.

This is a major reason, he said, for ASCP to support a national vaccination mandate. “People have postponed treatment because of the inability to access medical care [for other conditions],” he noted. The same is true for preventive or diagnostic care such as biopsies for breast cancer and colonoscopies, he added.

“In many parts of the country, the throughput of COVID tests made it difficult for us to focus on tests for other acute conditions. It overwhelmed the laboratory personnel in terms of the number of tests being run.”
 

Returning to the ‘dark days’

This was a significant issue in the earlier part of the pandemic, Dr. Holladay recalled. The shortage of non-COVID lab capacity eased in the spring and early summer of 2021, when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available.

“But with the Delta variant, we’re going back to those dark days and creating the same bottleneck that we saw in the beginning,” he said.

Although the situation is worse in some states than others, Dr. Holladay added, some of the hardest-hit states like Florida and Texas have very large populations.

“This is not just about doctors, nurses, pathologists, and laboratory personnel being exhausted,” commented Kimberly Sanford, MD, president of ASCP, in a press release. “Laboratory medicine is absolutely necessary for accurate and timely diagnosis of disease, infection control, and effective treatment planning. It is an essential part of the health care system and often overwhelmed by the increasing number of coronavirus tests requiring immediate analysis.

“Such testing takes time and disproportionately consumes scarce equipment and other resources. It means those with cancer and other life-threatening conditions face serious delays in diagnosis and treatment. It delays medical diagnoses, erects barriers to preventative care, and prevents us from focusing on the significant health care needs of the population at large.”

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

The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), which represents over 100,000 pathologists and medical laboratory professionals, has called for a nationwide vaccination mandate. It is the first medical specialty society to do so, ASCP chief executive officer Blair Holladay, PhD, said in an interview.

However, the American Lung Association this week said it supports President Biden’s call for businesses to require their employees to be vaccinated. In addition, more than 50 medical societies, including ASCP, recently said they support vaccination mandates for health care workers.

In a position statement released Wednesday, ASCP recommended that every eligible American be vaccinated. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is soon expected to fully approve at least one COVID-19 vaccine, and when it does, we urge that vaccination requirements become the norm,” the society said.

Second, ASCP noted that at least 16 states have enacted some form of a ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates or related requirements. These include blocking employment-based mandates, school vaccination or mask requirements, and vaccine passport requirements.

“These laws prolong the pandemic and threaten the health and safety of every American. They should be repealed or overturned immediately,” the association stated.

Third, ASCP said, it supports the guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that masks should be worn indoors in public places in areas of substantial or high COVID-19 transmission.

“Before more people die, our elected leaders need to take serious and aggressive action to ensure that Americans get vaccinated, so we can end the pandemic, end patient and family suffering, end the fatalities, and get back to the lives we had before COVID-19,” the statement concluded.
 

Laboratories have to focus on COVID again

In his interview, Dr. Holladay noted that the eruption of the Delta variant across the country has again forced laboratories to focus on COVID-19 testing at the expense of necessary tests related to other diseases.

“Because 7 of 10 medical decisions depend on the laboratory, anything that interferes with that interferes with the needs of patient care, including preventive, chronic, and acute care services,” he said.

This is a major reason, he said, for ASCP to support a national vaccination mandate. “People have postponed treatment because of the inability to access medical care [for other conditions],” he noted. The same is true for preventive or diagnostic care such as biopsies for breast cancer and colonoscopies, he added.

“In many parts of the country, the throughput of COVID tests made it difficult for us to focus on tests for other acute conditions. It overwhelmed the laboratory personnel in terms of the number of tests being run.”
 

Returning to the ‘dark days’

This was a significant issue in the earlier part of the pandemic, Dr. Holladay recalled. The shortage of non-COVID lab capacity eased in the spring and early summer of 2021, when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available.

“But with the Delta variant, we’re going back to those dark days and creating the same bottleneck that we saw in the beginning,” he said.

Although the situation is worse in some states than others, Dr. Holladay added, some of the hardest-hit states like Florida and Texas have very large populations.

“This is not just about doctors, nurses, pathologists, and laboratory personnel being exhausted,” commented Kimberly Sanford, MD, president of ASCP, in a press release. “Laboratory medicine is absolutely necessary for accurate and timely diagnosis of disease, infection control, and effective treatment planning. It is an essential part of the health care system and often overwhelmed by the increasing number of coronavirus tests requiring immediate analysis.

“Such testing takes time and disproportionately consumes scarce equipment and other resources. It means those with cancer and other life-threatening conditions face serious delays in diagnosis and treatment. It delays medical diagnoses, erects barriers to preventative care, and prevents us from focusing on the significant health care needs of the population at large.”

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

Using a procedureless intragastric balloon (PIGB) as a first-line treatment for obesity is cost effective as either a standalone intervention or a bridge to bariatric surgery, according to a new simulation model study published in PLOS One.

PIGB boasts a noninvasive delivery mechanism in the form of a swallowable capsule. Upon reaching the stomach, the capsule is filled with fluid via a catheter. The clinician uses x-ray or fluoroscopy to confirm correct positioning of the balloon. After 4 months, the balloon’s release valve opens to drain the fluid, and the balloon is excreted naturally. If presented with a major complication, clinicians can typically remove PIGB endoscopically. This not only translates into much lower costs than bariatric surgery but also fewer adverse events.

The available evidence surrounding PIGB’s relative efficacy is less clear. Prior studies have shown that PIGB produces an average weight loss of 14.2% after a single, 4-month treatment episode, compared with 32% after bariatric surgery. When compared against other intragastric balloon devices, however, PIGB has been shown to lead to comparable or superior levels of weight loss. There is also limited evidence about PIGB’s long-term efficacy, but some data suggest that weight lost is generally regained after removal of the balloon.

To date, though, there had been no analysis of whether PIBG’s proposed advantages would make it more cost effective when measured against the superior outcomes of commonly performed bariatric surgeries.
 

Assessing the cost of PIGB

Researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of six regimens: PIGB; standalone gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; and no treatment. The specific PIGB device the investigators assessed was the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies), which is approved in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is in the premarket approval process in the United States.

They then applied an individual patient-level Markov microsimulation model to compare these separate regimens in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation incorporated data from 10,000 adults aged 18-64 with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, of which 44% had a BMI ≥ 40. The model assumed patients initially underwent treatment with PIGB, gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy. Based on the predicted weight loss resulting from that intervention, the model then estimated how PIGB-only, gastric bypass–only, and sleeve gastrectomy–only patients transitioned to a new health state, ranging from no obesity to death. It also incorporated a hybrid strategy in which patients underwent bariatric surgery if their BMI was still ≥ 35. The researchers modeled complications in all groups as chance events, with a probability of occurrence based on BMI state.

The model determined that the most cost-effective approach was using PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,781 per QALY. PIGB alone was not cost effective versus bariatric surgery, but it did outperform no treatment (ICER, $21,711 per QALY).

The study investigators noted that there was a counterintuitive aspect to finding that PIGB was most cost effective when used as a bridge to surgery.

“Contrary to expectations that an add-on treatment to already expensive bariatric surgery would further increase health care costs, our results show that using PIGB as an add-on treatment reduces total costs and improves health outcomes, compared with bariatric surgery alone,” they wrote. “Consequently, as decision-makers look for ways to curb rising health care costs, it will be worthwhile to consider incorporating PIGB prior to bariatric surgery within the clinical care pathway.”

They also noted that initial PIGB may help patients achieve a lower BMI following surgery.
 

An appealing option

“This technique is very appealing to a lot of patients because you don’t need sedation, you can do it fairly quickly, and the risks and complications of endoscopy or surgery aren’t there with the procedureless balloon, at least on implantation,” said Reem Sharaiha, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric & Metabolic Endoscopy at Weill Cornell Medicine, when asked to comment on the study’s results. “I believe that you need to offer a lot of options to tackle obesity as an epidemic and to give patients multiple treatment options, because it’s not going to be a one and done. It’s going to be multiple procedures in their lifetime.”

Dr. Sharaiha added that PIGB’s noninvasive qualities may make it a viable option for addressing a notable gap in obesity treatment; only about 2% of individuals who would qualify for surgery actually do so each year.

“A lot of people are reluctant to undergo it because of the fear of complications or the fear of invasiveness. They do not want to be off work for many weeks,” she said. “Many people come to see me and say, ‘I don’t want to tell anyone that I’ve had it done.’ Or, ‘I don’t want any scars.’ So, a lot of these [factors] come into play as well.”

Dr. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has participated in trials conducted to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for the Elipse device.

Using a procedureless intragastric balloon (PIGB) as a first-line treatment for obesity is cost effective as either a standalone intervention or a bridge to bariatric surgery, according to a new simulation model study published in PLOS One.

PIGB boasts a noninvasive delivery mechanism in the form of a swallowable capsule. Upon reaching the stomach, the capsule is filled with fluid via a catheter. The clinician uses x-ray or fluoroscopy to confirm correct positioning of the balloon. After 4 months, the balloon’s release valve opens to drain the fluid, and the balloon is excreted naturally. If presented with a major complication, clinicians can typically remove PIGB endoscopically. This not only translates into much lower costs than bariatric surgery but also fewer adverse events.

The available evidence surrounding PIGB’s relative efficacy is less clear. Prior studies have shown that PIGB produces an average weight loss of 14.2% after a single, 4-month treatment episode, compared with 32% after bariatric surgery. When compared against other intragastric balloon devices, however, PIGB has been shown to lead to comparable or superior levels of weight loss. There is also limited evidence about PIGB’s long-term efficacy, but some data suggest that weight lost is generally regained after removal of the balloon.

To date, though, there had been no analysis of whether PIBG’s proposed advantages would make it more cost effective when measured against the superior outcomes of commonly performed bariatric surgeries.
 

Assessing the cost of PIGB

Researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of six regimens: PIGB; standalone gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; and no treatment. The specific PIGB device the investigators assessed was the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies), which is approved in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is in the premarket approval process in the United States.

They then applied an individual patient-level Markov microsimulation model to compare these separate regimens in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation incorporated data from 10,000 adults aged 18-64 with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, of which 44% had a BMI ≥ 40. The model assumed patients initially underwent treatment with PIGB, gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy. Based on the predicted weight loss resulting from that intervention, the model then estimated how PIGB-only, gastric bypass–only, and sleeve gastrectomy–only patients transitioned to a new health state, ranging from no obesity to death. It also incorporated a hybrid strategy in which patients underwent bariatric surgery if their BMI was still ≥ 35. The researchers modeled complications in all groups as chance events, with a probability of occurrence based on BMI state.

The model determined that the most cost-effective approach was using PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,781 per QALY. PIGB alone was not cost effective versus bariatric surgery, but it did outperform no treatment (ICER, $21,711 per QALY).

The study investigators noted that there was a counterintuitive aspect to finding that PIGB was most cost effective when used as a bridge to surgery.

“Contrary to expectations that an add-on treatment to already expensive bariatric surgery would further increase health care costs, our results show that using PIGB as an add-on treatment reduces total costs and improves health outcomes, compared with bariatric surgery alone,” they wrote. “Consequently, as decision-makers look for ways to curb rising health care costs, it will be worthwhile to consider incorporating PIGB prior to bariatric surgery within the clinical care pathway.”

They also noted that initial PIGB may help patients achieve a lower BMI following surgery.
 

An appealing option

“This technique is very appealing to a lot of patients because you don’t need sedation, you can do it fairly quickly, and the risks and complications of endoscopy or surgery aren’t there with the procedureless balloon, at least on implantation,” said Reem Sharaiha, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric & Metabolic Endoscopy at Weill Cornell Medicine, when asked to comment on the study’s results. “I believe that you need to offer a lot of options to tackle obesity as an epidemic and to give patients multiple treatment options, because it’s not going to be a one and done. It’s going to be multiple procedures in their lifetime.”

Dr. Sharaiha added that PIGB’s noninvasive qualities may make it a viable option for addressing a notable gap in obesity treatment; only about 2% of individuals who would qualify for surgery actually do so each year.

“A lot of people are reluctant to undergo it because of the fear of complications or the fear of invasiveness. They do not want to be off work for many weeks,” she said. “Many people come to see me and say, ‘I don’t want to tell anyone that I’ve had it done.’ Or, ‘I don’t want any scars.’ So, a lot of these [factors] come into play as well.”

Dr. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has participated in trials conducted to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for the Elipse device.

Using a procedureless intragastric balloon (PIGB) as a first-line treatment for obesity is cost effective as either a standalone intervention or a bridge to bariatric surgery, according to a new simulation model study published in PLOS One.

PIGB boasts a noninvasive delivery mechanism in the form of a swallowable capsule. Upon reaching the stomach, the capsule is filled with fluid via a catheter. The clinician uses x-ray or fluoroscopy to confirm correct positioning of the balloon. After 4 months, the balloon’s release valve opens to drain the fluid, and the balloon is excreted naturally. If presented with a major complication, clinicians can typically remove PIGB endoscopically. This not only translates into much lower costs than bariatric surgery but also fewer adverse events.

The available evidence surrounding PIGB’s relative efficacy is less clear. Prior studies have shown that PIGB produces an average weight loss of 14.2% after a single, 4-month treatment episode, compared with 32% after bariatric surgery. When compared against other intragastric balloon devices, however, PIGB has been shown to lead to comparable or superior levels of weight loss. There is also limited evidence about PIGB’s long-term efficacy, but some data suggest that weight lost is generally regained after removal of the balloon.

To date, though, there had been no analysis of whether PIBG’s proposed advantages would make it more cost effective when measured against the superior outcomes of commonly performed bariatric surgeries.
 

Assessing the cost of PIGB

Researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of six regimens: PIGB; standalone gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; and no treatment. The specific PIGB device the investigators assessed was the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies), which is approved in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is in the premarket approval process in the United States.

They then applied an individual patient-level Markov microsimulation model to compare these separate regimens in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation incorporated data from 10,000 adults aged 18-64 with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, of which 44% had a BMI ≥ 40. The model assumed patients initially underwent treatment with PIGB, gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy. Based on the predicted weight loss resulting from that intervention, the model then estimated how PIGB-only, gastric bypass–only, and sleeve gastrectomy–only patients transitioned to a new health state, ranging from no obesity to death. It also incorporated a hybrid strategy in which patients underwent bariatric surgery if their BMI was still ≥ 35. The researchers modeled complications in all groups as chance events, with a probability of occurrence based on BMI state.

The model determined that the most cost-effective approach was using PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,781 per QALY. PIGB alone was not cost effective versus bariatric surgery, but it did outperform no treatment (ICER, $21,711 per QALY).

The study investigators noted that there was a counterintuitive aspect to finding that PIGB was most cost effective when used as a bridge to surgery.

“Contrary to expectations that an add-on treatment to already expensive bariatric surgery would further increase health care costs, our results show that using PIGB as an add-on treatment reduces total costs and improves health outcomes, compared with bariatric surgery alone,” they wrote. “Consequently, as decision-makers look for ways to curb rising health care costs, it will be worthwhile to consider incorporating PIGB prior to bariatric surgery within the clinical care pathway.”

They also noted that initial PIGB may help patients achieve a lower BMI following surgery.
 

An appealing option

“This technique is very appealing to a lot of patients because you don’t need sedation, you can do it fairly quickly, and the risks and complications of endoscopy or surgery aren’t there with the procedureless balloon, at least on implantation,” said Reem Sharaiha, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric & Metabolic Endoscopy at Weill Cornell Medicine, when asked to comment on the study’s results. “I believe that you need to offer a lot of options to tackle obesity as an epidemic and to give patients multiple treatment options, because it’s not going to be a one and done. It’s going to be multiple procedures in their lifetime.”

Dr. Sharaiha added that PIGB’s noninvasive qualities may make it a viable option for addressing a notable gap in obesity treatment; only about 2% of individuals who would qualify for surgery actually do so each year.

“A lot of people are reluctant to undergo it because of the fear of complications or the fear of invasiveness. They do not want to be off work for many weeks,” she said. “Many people come to see me and say, ‘I don’t want to tell anyone that I’ve had it done.’ Or, ‘I don’t want any scars.’ So, a lot of these [factors] come into play as well.”

Dr. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has participated in trials conducted to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for the Elipse device.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

In a large study of community-based stroke survivors in Canada, researchers found those meeting guideline-recommended levels of physical activity had a significantly lower risk for death from any cause, with a greater than 50% reduction in risk.

Lead study author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), said he expected results to show exercise was beneficial, but was surprised by the magnitude of the association between physical activity and lower mortality risk.

The impact of physical activity also differed significantly by age; those younger than 75 had a 79% reduction in mortality risk, compared with 32% in those age 75 and older.

“This is even after adjusting for factors such heart disease, respiratory conditions, smoking, and other functional limitations,” said Dr. Joundi.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Neurology.

For this analysis, the researchers used data on a cohort of people across Canada (excluding the province of Quebec) over 3-9 years. The 895 patients with prior stroke averaged 72 years of age, while the 97,805 in the control group had an average age of 63.

Weekly physical activity averages were evaluated using the self-reporting Canadian Community Health Survey, which was linked with administrative databases to evaluate the association of physical activity with long-term risk for mortality among stroke survivors, compared with controls.

Physical activity was measured in metabolic equivalents (METs); meeting minimum physical activity guidelines was defined as 10 MET-hours/week.

During the study period, more stroke patients than controls died (24.7% vs. 5.7%). However, those who met the physical activity guideline recommendations of 10 MET-hours/week had a lower mortality, both in the stroke survivor group (14.6% vs. 33.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.73) and among control participants (3.6% vs. 7.9%; aHR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76).  

The largest absolute and relative reduction in mortality was among stroke respondents younger than 75 (10.5% vs. 29%; aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43), the researchers note.

There was a significant interaction with age for the stroke patients but not the control group.

“The greatest reduction in mortality was seen between 0 and 10 METs per week … so the main point is that something is better than nothing,” said Dr. Joundi.
 

Exercise guidelines for the future

Although current guidelines recommend physical activity in stroke survivors, investigators noted that these are largely based on studies in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this research was to get a better understanding of the role of physical activity in the health of stroke survivors in the community, which could ultimately be used to design improved public health campaigns and physical activity interventions.

Given that this is a large study of stroke survivors in the community, Dr. Joundi hopes the results will influence future activity guidelines for those who have suffered a stroke.

“We found a log-linear relationship between physical activity and mortality such that 10 MET-hours/week was associated with large reductions in mortality with most benefit achieved by 20 MET-hours/week,” the authors concluded. “These thresholds could be considered for use in future guidelines for stroke.”

Clinical trials are underway to provide evidence for the implementation of exercise programs after stroke, they add, and offering physical activity programs to stroke survivors in the community “is an increasing priority in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.”

“People are at higher risk of death early on after a stroke but also months and years later, so if we can identify a relatively low-cost and easy intervention like physical activity to improve health and reduce the risk of death for stroke survivors it would be important,” Dr. Joundi said.
 

Key barriers

Paul George, MD, PhD, a stroke and vascular neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, said findings such as these further strengthen the argument that physical exercise is important after stroke.

“Because the study looked specifically at stroke patients, it can provide further guidance on physical activity recommendations that we provide to our patients following stroke,” said Dr. George, who was not associated with the study. 

Going forward, he said, more research is needed to identify specifically what is preventing stroke patients from exercising more. What is required, he said, is “future research to determine the key barriers to physical activity following stroke and methods to reduce these will also be important to increasing physical activity in stroke survivors.”

Dr. Joundi said determining how to tailor exercise recommendations to meet the wide range of capabilities of stroke survivors will be another key factor.

“Stroke survivors may have some disabilities, so we need to be able to engage them at an [exercise] level that’s possible for them,” he said.

The study did not include stroke survivors living in long-term care homes.

The study had no targeted funding. Coauthor Eric E. Smith, MD, MPH, reports royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from Alnylam, Biogen, and Javelin. Dr. Joundi and the other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large study of community-based stroke survivors in Canada, researchers found those meeting guideline-recommended levels of physical activity had a significantly lower risk for death from any cause, with a greater than 50% reduction in risk.

Lead study author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), said he expected results to show exercise was beneficial, but was surprised by the magnitude of the association between physical activity and lower mortality risk.

The impact of physical activity also differed significantly by age; those younger than 75 had a 79% reduction in mortality risk, compared with 32% in those age 75 and older.

“This is even after adjusting for factors such heart disease, respiratory conditions, smoking, and other functional limitations,” said Dr. Joundi.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Neurology.

For this analysis, the researchers used data on a cohort of people across Canada (excluding the province of Quebec) over 3-9 years. The 895 patients with prior stroke averaged 72 years of age, while the 97,805 in the control group had an average age of 63.

Weekly physical activity averages were evaluated using the self-reporting Canadian Community Health Survey, which was linked with administrative databases to evaluate the association of physical activity with long-term risk for mortality among stroke survivors, compared with controls.

Physical activity was measured in metabolic equivalents (METs); meeting minimum physical activity guidelines was defined as 10 MET-hours/week.

During the study period, more stroke patients than controls died (24.7% vs. 5.7%). However, those who met the physical activity guideline recommendations of 10 MET-hours/week had a lower mortality, both in the stroke survivor group (14.6% vs. 33.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.73) and among control participants (3.6% vs. 7.9%; aHR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76).  

The largest absolute and relative reduction in mortality was among stroke respondents younger than 75 (10.5% vs. 29%; aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43), the researchers note.

There was a significant interaction with age for the stroke patients but not the control group.

“The greatest reduction in mortality was seen between 0 and 10 METs per week … so the main point is that something is better than nothing,” said Dr. Joundi.
 

Exercise guidelines for the future

Although current guidelines recommend physical activity in stroke survivors, investigators noted that these are largely based on studies in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this research was to get a better understanding of the role of physical activity in the health of stroke survivors in the community, which could ultimately be used to design improved public health campaigns and physical activity interventions.

Given that this is a large study of stroke survivors in the community, Dr. Joundi hopes the results will influence future activity guidelines for those who have suffered a stroke.

“We found a log-linear relationship between physical activity and mortality such that 10 MET-hours/week was associated with large reductions in mortality with most benefit achieved by 20 MET-hours/week,” the authors concluded. “These thresholds could be considered for use in future guidelines for stroke.”

Clinical trials are underway to provide evidence for the implementation of exercise programs after stroke, they add, and offering physical activity programs to stroke survivors in the community “is an increasing priority in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.”

“People are at higher risk of death early on after a stroke but also months and years later, so if we can identify a relatively low-cost and easy intervention like physical activity to improve health and reduce the risk of death for stroke survivors it would be important,” Dr. Joundi said.
 

Key barriers

Paul George, MD, PhD, a stroke and vascular neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, said findings such as these further strengthen the argument that physical exercise is important after stroke.

“Because the study looked specifically at stroke patients, it can provide further guidance on physical activity recommendations that we provide to our patients following stroke,” said Dr. George, who was not associated with the study. 

Going forward, he said, more research is needed to identify specifically what is preventing stroke patients from exercising more. What is required, he said, is “future research to determine the key barriers to physical activity following stroke and methods to reduce these will also be important to increasing physical activity in stroke survivors.”

Dr. Joundi said determining how to tailor exercise recommendations to meet the wide range of capabilities of stroke survivors will be another key factor.

“Stroke survivors may have some disabilities, so we need to be able to engage them at an [exercise] level that’s possible for them,” he said.

The study did not include stroke survivors living in long-term care homes.

The study had no targeted funding. Coauthor Eric E. Smith, MD, MPH, reports royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from Alnylam, Biogen, and Javelin. Dr. Joundi and the other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large study of community-based stroke survivors in Canada, researchers found those meeting guideline-recommended levels of physical activity had a significantly lower risk for death from any cause, with a greater than 50% reduction in risk.

Lead study author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), said he expected results to show exercise was beneficial, but was surprised by the magnitude of the association between physical activity and lower mortality risk.

The impact of physical activity also differed significantly by age; those younger than 75 had a 79% reduction in mortality risk, compared with 32% in those age 75 and older.

“This is even after adjusting for factors such heart disease, respiratory conditions, smoking, and other functional limitations,” said Dr. Joundi.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Neurology.

For this analysis, the researchers used data on a cohort of people across Canada (excluding the province of Quebec) over 3-9 years. The 895 patients with prior stroke averaged 72 years of age, while the 97,805 in the control group had an average age of 63.

Weekly physical activity averages were evaluated using the self-reporting Canadian Community Health Survey, which was linked with administrative databases to evaluate the association of physical activity with long-term risk for mortality among stroke survivors, compared with controls.

Physical activity was measured in metabolic equivalents (METs); meeting minimum physical activity guidelines was defined as 10 MET-hours/week.

During the study period, more stroke patients than controls died (24.7% vs. 5.7%). However, those who met the physical activity guideline recommendations of 10 MET-hours/week had a lower mortality, both in the stroke survivor group (14.6% vs. 33.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.73) and among control participants (3.6% vs. 7.9%; aHR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76).  

The largest absolute and relative reduction in mortality was among stroke respondents younger than 75 (10.5% vs. 29%; aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43), the researchers note.

There was a significant interaction with age for the stroke patients but not the control group.

“The greatest reduction in mortality was seen between 0 and 10 METs per week … so the main point is that something is better than nothing,” said Dr. Joundi.
 

Exercise guidelines for the future

Although current guidelines recommend physical activity in stroke survivors, investigators noted that these are largely based on studies in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this research was to get a better understanding of the role of physical activity in the health of stroke survivors in the community, which could ultimately be used to design improved public health campaigns and physical activity interventions.

Given that this is a large study of stroke survivors in the community, Dr. Joundi hopes the results will influence future activity guidelines for those who have suffered a stroke.

“We found a log-linear relationship between physical activity and mortality such that 10 MET-hours/week was associated with large reductions in mortality with most benefit achieved by 20 MET-hours/week,” the authors concluded. “These thresholds could be considered for use in future guidelines for stroke.”

Clinical trials are underway to provide evidence for the implementation of exercise programs after stroke, they add, and offering physical activity programs to stroke survivors in the community “is an increasing priority in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.”

“People are at higher risk of death early on after a stroke but also months and years later, so if we can identify a relatively low-cost and easy intervention like physical activity to improve health and reduce the risk of death for stroke survivors it would be important,” Dr. Joundi said.
 

Key barriers

Paul George, MD, PhD, a stroke and vascular neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, said findings such as these further strengthen the argument that physical exercise is important after stroke.

“Because the study looked specifically at stroke patients, it can provide further guidance on physical activity recommendations that we provide to our patients following stroke,” said Dr. George, who was not associated with the study. 

Going forward, he said, more research is needed to identify specifically what is preventing stroke patients from exercising more. What is required, he said, is “future research to determine the key barriers to physical activity following stroke and methods to reduce these will also be important to increasing physical activity in stroke survivors.”

Dr. Joundi said determining how to tailor exercise recommendations to meet the wide range of capabilities of stroke survivors will be another key factor.

“Stroke survivors may have some disabilities, so we need to be able to engage them at an [exercise] level that’s possible for them,” he said.

The study did not include stroke survivors living in long-term care homes.

The study had no targeted funding. Coauthor Eric E. Smith, MD, MPH, reports royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from Alnylam, Biogen, and Javelin. Dr. Joundi and the other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

At a maternal–fetal medicine practice in New York, monochorionic pregnancies were not at increased risk for cesarean delivery, compared with dichorionic pregnancies, a retrospective study shows.

Between 2005 and 2021, mode of delivery of diamniotic twins at this practice did not significantly differ by chorionicity, researchers affiliated with Maternal Fetal Medicine Associates and the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study supports a recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that vaginal delivery “is a reasonable option in well selected diamniotic twin pregnancies, irrespective of chorionicity, and should be considered, provided that an experienced obstetrician is available,” said Iris Krishna, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

The experience at this practice, however, may not apply to many practices in the United States, said Dr. Krishna, who was not involved in the study.

Of 1,121 diamniotic twin pregnancies included in the analysis, 202 (18%) were monochorionic. The cesarean delivery rate was not significantly different between groups: 61% for monochorionic and 63% for dichorionic pregnancies.

Among women with planned vaginal delivery (101 monochorionic pregnancies and 422 dichorionic pregnancies), the cesarean delivery rate likewise did not significantly differ by chorionicity. Twenty-two percent of the monochorionic pregnancies and 21% of the dichorionic pregnancies in this subgroup had a cesarean delivery.

Among patients with a vaginal delivery of twin A, chorionicity was not associated with mode of delivery for twin B. Combined vaginal-cesarean deliveries occurred less than 1% of the time, and breech extraction of twin B occurred approximately 75% of the time, regardless of chorionicity.

The researchers also compared neonatal outcomes for monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies at or after 34 weeks of gestation, based on the intended mode of delivery (95 women with planned vaginal delivery and 68 with planned cesarean delivery). Neonatal outcomes generally were similar, although the incidence of mechanical ventilation was less common in cases with planned vaginal delivery (7% vs. 21%).

“Our data affirm that an attempt at a vaginal birth for twin pregnancies, without contraindications to vaginal delivery and regardless of chorionicity, is reasonable and achievable,” wrote study author Henry N. Lesser, MD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The patients with planned cesarean delivery had a contraindication to vaginal delivery or otherwise chose to have a cesarean delivery. The researchers excluded from their analysis pregnancies with intrauterine fetal demise of either twin before labor or planned cesarean delivery.

The study’s reliance on data from a single practice decreases its external validity, the researchers noted. Induction of labor at this center typically occurs at 37 weeks’ gestation for monochorionic twins and at 38 weeks for dichorionic twins, and “senior personnel experienced in intrauterine twin manipulation are always present at delivery,” the study authors said.

The study describes “the experience of a single site with skilled obstetricians following a standardized approach to management of diamniotic twin deliveries,” Dr. Krishna said. “Findings may not be generalizable to many U.S. practices as obstetrics and gynecology residents often lack training in breech extraction or internal podalic version of the second twin. This underscores the importance of a concerted effort by skilled senior physicians to train junior physicians in vaginal delivery of the second twin to improve overall outcomes amongst women with diamniotic twin gestations.”

Michael F. Greene, MD, professor emeritus of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed that the findings are not generalizable to the national population. Approximately 10% of the patients in the study had prepregnancy obesity, whereas doctors practicing in other areas likely encounter higher rates, Dr. Greene said in an interview.

He also wondered about other data points that could be of interest but were not reported, such as the racial or ethnic distribution of the patients, rates of birth defects, the use of instruments to aid delivery, and neonatal outcomes for the dichorionic twins.

Monochorionic pregnancies entail a risk of twin-twin transfusion syndrome and other complications, including an increased likelihood of birth defects.

Dr. Greene is an associate editor with the New England Journal of Medicine, which in 2013 published results from the Twin Birth Study, an international trial where women with dichorionic or monochorionic twins were randomly assigned to planned vaginal delivery or planned cesarean delivery. Outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. In the trial, the rate of cesarean delivery in the group with planned vaginal delivery was 43.8%, and Dr. Greene discussed the implications of the study in an accompanying editorial.

Since then, the obstetrics and gynecology community “has been focusing in recent years on trying to avoid the first cesarean section” when it is safe to do so, Dr. Greene said. “That has become almost a bumper sticker in modern obstetrics.”

And patients should know that it is an option, Dr. Krishna added.

“Women with monochorionic-diamniotic twins should be counseled that with an experienced obstetrician that an attempt at vaginal delivery is not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes when compared with planned cesarean delivery,” Dr. Krishna said.

A study coauthor disclosed serving on the speakers bureau for Natera and Hologic. Dr. Krishna is a member of the editorial advisory board for Ob.Gyn. News.
 

[email protected]

At a maternal–fetal medicine practice in New York, monochorionic pregnancies were not at increased risk for cesarean delivery, compared with dichorionic pregnancies, a retrospective study shows.

Between 2005 and 2021, mode of delivery of diamniotic twins at this practice did not significantly differ by chorionicity, researchers affiliated with Maternal Fetal Medicine Associates and the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study supports a recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that vaginal delivery “is a reasonable option in well selected diamniotic twin pregnancies, irrespective of chorionicity, and should be considered, provided that an experienced obstetrician is available,” said Iris Krishna, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

The experience at this practice, however, may not apply to many practices in the United States, said Dr. Krishna, who was not involved in the study.

Of 1,121 diamniotic twin pregnancies included in the analysis, 202 (18%) were monochorionic. The cesarean delivery rate was not significantly different between groups: 61% for monochorionic and 63% for dichorionic pregnancies.

Among women with planned vaginal delivery (101 monochorionic pregnancies and 422 dichorionic pregnancies), the cesarean delivery rate likewise did not significantly differ by chorionicity. Twenty-two percent of the monochorionic pregnancies and 21% of the dichorionic pregnancies in this subgroup had a cesarean delivery.

Among patients with a vaginal delivery of twin A, chorionicity was not associated with mode of delivery for twin B. Combined vaginal-cesarean deliveries occurred less than 1% of the time, and breech extraction of twin B occurred approximately 75% of the time, regardless of chorionicity.

The researchers also compared neonatal outcomes for monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies at or after 34 weeks of gestation, based on the intended mode of delivery (95 women with planned vaginal delivery and 68 with planned cesarean delivery). Neonatal outcomes generally were similar, although the incidence of mechanical ventilation was less common in cases with planned vaginal delivery (7% vs. 21%).

“Our data affirm that an attempt at a vaginal birth for twin pregnancies, without contraindications to vaginal delivery and regardless of chorionicity, is reasonable and achievable,” wrote study author Henry N. Lesser, MD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The patients with planned cesarean delivery had a contraindication to vaginal delivery or otherwise chose to have a cesarean delivery. The researchers excluded from their analysis pregnancies with intrauterine fetal demise of either twin before labor or planned cesarean delivery.

The study’s reliance on data from a single practice decreases its external validity, the researchers noted. Induction of labor at this center typically occurs at 37 weeks’ gestation for monochorionic twins and at 38 weeks for dichorionic twins, and “senior personnel experienced in intrauterine twin manipulation are always present at delivery,” the study authors said.

The study describes “the experience of a single site with skilled obstetricians following a standardized approach to management of diamniotic twin deliveries,” Dr. Krishna said. “Findings may not be generalizable to many U.S. practices as obstetrics and gynecology residents often lack training in breech extraction or internal podalic version of the second twin. This underscores the importance of a concerted effort by skilled senior physicians to train junior physicians in vaginal delivery of the second twin to improve overall outcomes amongst women with diamniotic twin gestations.”

Michael F. Greene, MD, professor emeritus of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed that the findings are not generalizable to the national population. Approximately 10% of the patients in the study had prepregnancy obesity, whereas doctors practicing in other areas likely encounter higher rates, Dr. Greene said in an interview.

He also wondered about other data points that could be of interest but were not reported, such as the racial or ethnic distribution of the patients, rates of birth defects, the use of instruments to aid delivery, and neonatal outcomes for the dichorionic twins.

Monochorionic pregnancies entail a risk of twin-twin transfusion syndrome and other complications, including an increased likelihood of birth defects.

Dr. Greene is an associate editor with the New England Journal of Medicine, which in 2013 published results from the Twin Birth Study, an international trial where women with dichorionic or monochorionic twins were randomly assigned to planned vaginal delivery or planned cesarean delivery. Outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. In the trial, the rate of cesarean delivery in the group with planned vaginal delivery was 43.8%, and Dr. Greene discussed the implications of the study in an accompanying editorial.

Since then, the obstetrics and gynecology community “has been focusing in recent years on trying to avoid the first cesarean section” when it is safe to do so, Dr. Greene said. “That has become almost a bumper sticker in modern obstetrics.”

And patients should know that it is an option, Dr. Krishna added.

“Women with monochorionic-diamniotic twins should be counseled that with an experienced obstetrician that an attempt at vaginal delivery is not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes when compared with planned cesarean delivery,” Dr. Krishna said.

A study coauthor disclosed serving on the speakers bureau for Natera and Hologic. Dr. Krishna is a member of the editorial advisory board for Ob.Gyn. News.
 

[email protected]

At a maternal–fetal medicine practice in New York, monochorionic pregnancies were not at increased risk for cesarean delivery, compared with dichorionic pregnancies, a retrospective study shows.

Between 2005 and 2021, mode of delivery of diamniotic twins at this practice did not significantly differ by chorionicity, researchers affiliated with Maternal Fetal Medicine Associates and the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study supports a recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that vaginal delivery “is a reasonable option in well selected diamniotic twin pregnancies, irrespective of chorionicity, and should be considered, provided that an experienced obstetrician is available,” said Iris Krishna, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

The experience at this practice, however, may not apply to many practices in the United States, said Dr. Krishna, who was not involved in the study.

Of 1,121 diamniotic twin pregnancies included in the analysis, 202 (18%) were monochorionic. The cesarean delivery rate was not significantly different between groups: 61% for monochorionic and 63% for dichorionic pregnancies.

Among women with planned vaginal delivery (101 monochorionic pregnancies and 422 dichorionic pregnancies), the cesarean delivery rate likewise did not significantly differ by chorionicity. Twenty-two percent of the monochorionic pregnancies and 21% of the dichorionic pregnancies in this subgroup had a cesarean delivery.

Among patients with a vaginal delivery of twin A, chorionicity was not associated with mode of delivery for twin B. Combined vaginal-cesarean deliveries occurred less than 1% of the time, and breech extraction of twin B occurred approximately 75% of the time, regardless of chorionicity.

The researchers also compared neonatal outcomes for monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies at or after 34 weeks of gestation, based on the intended mode of delivery (95 women with planned vaginal delivery and 68 with planned cesarean delivery). Neonatal outcomes generally were similar, although the incidence of mechanical ventilation was less common in cases with planned vaginal delivery (7% vs. 21%).

“Our data affirm that an attempt at a vaginal birth for twin pregnancies, without contraindications to vaginal delivery and regardless of chorionicity, is reasonable and achievable,” wrote study author Henry N. Lesser, MD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The patients with planned cesarean delivery had a contraindication to vaginal delivery or otherwise chose to have a cesarean delivery. The researchers excluded from their analysis pregnancies with intrauterine fetal demise of either twin before labor or planned cesarean delivery.

The study’s reliance on data from a single practice decreases its external validity, the researchers noted. Induction of labor at this center typically occurs at 37 weeks’ gestation for monochorionic twins and at 38 weeks for dichorionic twins, and “senior personnel experienced in intrauterine twin manipulation are always present at delivery,” the study authors said.

The study describes “the experience of a single site with skilled obstetricians following a standardized approach to management of diamniotic twin deliveries,” Dr. Krishna said. “Findings may not be generalizable to many U.S. practices as obstetrics and gynecology residents often lack training in breech extraction or internal podalic version of the second twin. This underscores the importance of a concerted effort by skilled senior physicians to train junior physicians in vaginal delivery of the second twin to improve overall outcomes amongst women with diamniotic twin gestations.”

Michael F. Greene, MD, professor emeritus of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed that the findings are not generalizable to the national population. Approximately 10% of the patients in the study had prepregnancy obesity, whereas doctors practicing in other areas likely encounter higher rates, Dr. Greene said in an interview.

He also wondered about other data points that could be of interest but were not reported, such as the racial or ethnic distribution of the patients, rates of birth defects, the use of instruments to aid delivery, and neonatal outcomes for the dichorionic twins.

Monochorionic pregnancies entail a risk of twin-twin transfusion syndrome and other complications, including an increased likelihood of birth defects.

Dr. Greene is an associate editor with the New England Journal of Medicine, which in 2013 published results from the Twin Birth Study, an international trial where women with dichorionic or monochorionic twins were randomly assigned to planned vaginal delivery or planned cesarean delivery. Outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. In the trial, the rate of cesarean delivery in the group with planned vaginal delivery was 43.8%, and Dr. Greene discussed the implications of the study in an accompanying editorial.

Since then, the obstetrics and gynecology community “has been focusing in recent years on trying to avoid the first cesarean section” when it is safe to do so, Dr. Greene said. “That has become almost a bumper sticker in modern obstetrics.”

And patients should know that it is an option, Dr. Krishna added.

“Women with monochorionic-diamniotic twins should be counseled that with an experienced obstetrician that an attempt at vaginal delivery is not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes when compared with planned cesarean delivery,” Dr. Krishna said.

A study coauthor disclosed serving on the speakers bureau for Natera and Hologic. Dr. Krishna is a member of the editorial advisory board for Ob.Gyn. News.
 

[email protected]

A blood test that uses a patient’s unique genetic signature has shown some ability to predict nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an observational clinical study has found, but the test’s predictive accuracy was well below 100%.

The test is the blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that uses RNA sequencing data based on 23 different biomarkers: 19 RNA transcripts and 4 clinical features. The clinical features are body mass index, gender, patient global assessment, and anticyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) status.

The NETWORK-004 study, published in Rheumatology and Therapy, was able to stratify patients who were likely to respond inadequately to TNFi therapy and could provide patient-specific information to guide therapy choice in RA patients regardless of whether they’ve already been on TNFi therapy. The study evaluated the MSRC test in 504 patients, 391 of whom were treatment naive.
 

Avoiding ‘fail first’ approach

The idea behind the test is to circumvent the “fail first” approach in finding the right therapy for RA in an individual patient. While the test costs $4,995, Alif Saleh, chief executive officer of Scipher Medicine, which markets the test under the name PrismRA, said in a press release that it has the potential to reduce costs by $19,000 or more per patient per year by avoiding treatments that don’t work. A previous study, which Scipher funded, reported that the test resulted in savings of $7,379 in per-patient costs of ineffective therapy. The same study reported a 25% decrease in costs for ineffective treatments for Medicare-eligible patients.

The price of RA drugs, particularly anti-TNF agents, is hefty and rising. GoodRx has reported that the price of RA drugs increased 92% from 2014 to 2019, and the prices for anti-TNF agents such as etanercept and adalimumab more than doubled in that period. Adalimumab can cost upwards of $84,000 per year while etanercept has a list price of around $72,000 a year. The pharmacy benefit manager WellDyne started covering the test MSRC in February.

Nehad Soloman, MD, a rheumatologist and internist at Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in Glendale and a compensated NETWORK-004 investigator, said the MSRC test would be indicated for confirmed RA patients for whom rheumatologists are considering biologic agents, particularly TNFi drugs. “You wouldn’t do it on an RA patient who’s been on several different medications because it doesn’t serve a purpose at that point,” he said.

The potential cost savings may not be the only reason to use the test, Dr. Soloman said. “You don’t want to be dabbling with the wrong drug if there’s another path you can try and save society some money as well as the time and energy it takes to monitor the patients – as well as the patient’s pain,” he said.
 

How the MSRC test works

The MSRC test detects a signal that’s associated with a high or very high likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies and indicates that the patient is unlikely to achieve low disease activity or remission with TNFi therapies. Response is defined as achieving ACR50 – meaning 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria – at 6 months.

Test results are reported on a continuous 1-25 scale, explained Slava Akmaev, PhD, chief technology officer and head of therapeutics at Scipher. “The higher the score, the more likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies and be unable to reach low disease activity; the lower the score, the less likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies,” he said. However, Dr. Akmaev noted that a low score does not ensure a positive response to TNFi therapies.

The MSRC test differs from the multibiomarker disease activity blood test (MBDA; marketed as Vectra by Myriad Genetics) in the number of biomarkers it measures: 19 RNA transcripts vs. 12 serum protein biomarkers in MBDA. The MBDA test is also intended to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of RA disease activity rather than to predict nonresponse to TNFi or other biologics. A number of studies have validated the MBDA test for predicting disease control in RA patients, but not necessarily response to TNFi therapy.

The “high” category threshold of the MSRC test corresponds to an approximate 90% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, or a 10% chance of responding. The “very high” category threshold corresponds to an approximate 95% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, Dr. Akmaev said.

NETWORK-004 used area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the MSRC test. An AUC of 1 represents 100% accuracy. Overall, the MSRC had an AUC of 0.64, or 64% accuracy of predicting patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapy and to achieve ACR50 at 6 months, with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; P = .0001).

The predictive accuracy went up to 74% with ORs of 3.4-8.8 for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months (P < .01). Among patients who had already been on TNFi therapy, the predictive accuracy was 83% and associated with ORs of 3.3-26.6 based on ACR, 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) metrics.

The investigators also performed an in-cohort cross-validation of the MSRC using baseline blood samples of 245 treatment-naive patients from the CERTAIN study, which yielded a 66% predictive accuracy for the ACR50 outcome at 6 months. Using the 19 RNA transcripts from the test, but not the clinical factors, the predictive accuracy was 62.5%. Using ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28 as measures for 6-month response, the cross-validation analysis of all 23 MSRC features yielded predictive accuracy of 64%-67%.

The study found significant differences in model scores between patients who did and did not have the molecular signal of nonresponse, and the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months based on CDAI and DAS28-CRP measures was greater among those who lacked a molecular signature of nonresponse.

“Those who lack this signature can proceed with TNFi therapy and possibly achieve an increased response rate relative to the unstratified population,” wrote lead study author Stanley B. Cohen, MD, and colleagues.

Daniel E. Furst, MD, emeritus professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the design of the NETWORK-004 study as “excellent,” but said that it didn’t overcome potential issues with the MSRC test itself. “The results unfortunately are great for group data but not for individuals, with a predictive area under the curve of 60% to 80%, it really is not that useful,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a patient who’s not doing well, and I do a test and it’s positive; that still means that 20% of the time you will respond.”

He also noted that he coauthored a paper that used decreases in DAS28 to predict nonresponse to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate with 95% probability in the first 12 weeks of treatment. “That’s closer to what we need,” Dr. Furst said.

However, the MSRC test is a promising sign of where testing for predicting RA therapy is headed, he said. “We are steadily working toward genetic signatures that really are predictive on an individual basis,” Dr. Furst said. “It’s coming; it’s just not here yet.”

Dr. Furst had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Soloman is a paid investigator and consultant to Scipher Medicine.
 

A blood test that uses a patient’s unique genetic signature has shown some ability to predict nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an observational clinical study has found, but the test’s predictive accuracy was well below 100%.

The test is the blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that uses RNA sequencing data based on 23 different biomarkers: 19 RNA transcripts and 4 clinical features. The clinical features are body mass index, gender, patient global assessment, and anticyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) status.

The NETWORK-004 study, published in Rheumatology and Therapy, was able to stratify patients who were likely to respond inadequately to TNFi therapy and could provide patient-specific information to guide therapy choice in RA patients regardless of whether they’ve already been on TNFi therapy. The study evaluated the MSRC test in 504 patients, 391 of whom were treatment naive.
 

Avoiding ‘fail first’ approach

The idea behind the test is to circumvent the “fail first” approach in finding the right therapy for RA in an individual patient. While the test costs $4,995, Alif Saleh, chief executive officer of Scipher Medicine, which markets the test under the name PrismRA, said in a press release that it has the potential to reduce costs by $19,000 or more per patient per year by avoiding treatments that don’t work. A previous study, which Scipher funded, reported that the test resulted in savings of $7,379 in per-patient costs of ineffective therapy. The same study reported a 25% decrease in costs for ineffective treatments for Medicare-eligible patients.

The price of RA drugs, particularly anti-TNF agents, is hefty and rising. GoodRx has reported that the price of RA drugs increased 92% from 2014 to 2019, and the prices for anti-TNF agents such as etanercept and adalimumab more than doubled in that period. Adalimumab can cost upwards of $84,000 per year while etanercept has a list price of around $72,000 a year. The pharmacy benefit manager WellDyne started covering the test MSRC in February.

Nehad Soloman, MD, a rheumatologist and internist at Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in Glendale and a compensated NETWORK-004 investigator, said the MSRC test would be indicated for confirmed RA patients for whom rheumatologists are considering biologic agents, particularly TNFi drugs. “You wouldn’t do it on an RA patient who’s been on several different medications because it doesn’t serve a purpose at that point,” he said.

The potential cost savings may not be the only reason to use the test, Dr. Soloman said. “You don’t want to be dabbling with the wrong drug if there’s another path you can try and save society some money as well as the time and energy it takes to monitor the patients – as well as the patient’s pain,” he said.
 

How the MSRC test works

The MSRC test detects a signal that’s associated with a high or very high likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies and indicates that the patient is unlikely to achieve low disease activity or remission with TNFi therapies. Response is defined as achieving ACR50 – meaning 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria – at 6 months.

Test results are reported on a continuous 1-25 scale, explained Slava Akmaev, PhD, chief technology officer and head of therapeutics at Scipher. “The higher the score, the more likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies and be unable to reach low disease activity; the lower the score, the less likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies,” he said. However, Dr. Akmaev noted that a low score does not ensure a positive response to TNFi therapies.

The MSRC test differs from the multibiomarker disease activity blood test (MBDA; marketed as Vectra by Myriad Genetics) in the number of biomarkers it measures: 19 RNA transcripts vs. 12 serum protein biomarkers in MBDA. The MBDA test is also intended to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of RA disease activity rather than to predict nonresponse to TNFi or other biologics. A number of studies have validated the MBDA test for predicting disease control in RA patients, but not necessarily response to TNFi therapy.

The “high” category threshold of the MSRC test corresponds to an approximate 90% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, or a 10% chance of responding. The “very high” category threshold corresponds to an approximate 95% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, Dr. Akmaev said.

NETWORK-004 used area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the MSRC test. An AUC of 1 represents 100% accuracy. Overall, the MSRC had an AUC of 0.64, or 64% accuracy of predicting patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapy and to achieve ACR50 at 6 months, with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; P = .0001).

The predictive accuracy went up to 74% with ORs of 3.4-8.8 for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months (P < .01). Among patients who had already been on TNFi therapy, the predictive accuracy was 83% and associated with ORs of 3.3-26.6 based on ACR, 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) metrics.

The investigators also performed an in-cohort cross-validation of the MSRC using baseline blood samples of 245 treatment-naive patients from the CERTAIN study, which yielded a 66% predictive accuracy for the ACR50 outcome at 6 months. Using the 19 RNA transcripts from the test, but not the clinical factors, the predictive accuracy was 62.5%. Using ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28 as measures for 6-month response, the cross-validation analysis of all 23 MSRC features yielded predictive accuracy of 64%-67%.

The study found significant differences in model scores between patients who did and did not have the molecular signal of nonresponse, and the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months based on CDAI and DAS28-CRP measures was greater among those who lacked a molecular signature of nonresponse.

“Those who lack this signature can proceed with TNFi therapy and possibly achieve an increased response rate relative to the unstratified population,” wrote lead study author Stanley B. Cohen, MD, and colleagues.

Daniel E. Furst, MD, emeritus professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the design of the NETWORK-004 study as “excellent,” but said that it didn’t overcome potential issues with the MSRC test itself. “The results unfortunately are great for group data but not for individuals, with a predictive area under the curve of 60% to 80%, it really is not that useful,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a patient who’s not doing well, and I do a test and it’s positive; that still means that 20% of the time you will respond.”

He also noted that he coauthored a paper that used decreases in DAS28 to predict nonresponse to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate with 95% probability in the first 12 weeks of treatment. “That’s closer to what we need,” Dr. Furst said.

However, the MSRC test is a promising sign of where testing for predicting RA therapy is headed, he said. “We are steadily working toward genetic signatures that really are predictive on an individual basis,” Dr. Furst said. “It’s coming; it’s just not here yet.”

Dr. Furst had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Soloman is a paid investigator and consultant to Scipher Medicine.
 

A blood test that uses a patient’s unique genetic signature has shown some ability to predict nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an observational clinical study has found, but the test’s predictive accuracy was well below 100%.

The test is the blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that uses RNA sequencing data based on 23 different biomarkers: 19 RNA transcripts and 4 clinical features. The clinical features are body mass index, gender, patient global assessment, and anticyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) status.

The NETWORK-004 study, published in Rheumatology and Therapy, was able to stratify patients who were likely to respond inadequately to TNFi therapy and could provide patient-specific information to guide therapy choice in RA patients regardless of whether they’ve already been on TNFi therapy. The study evaluated the MSRC test in 504 patients, 391 of whom were treatment naive.
 

Avoiding ‘fail first’ approach

The idea behind the test is to circumvent the “fail first” approach in finding the right therapy for RA in an individual patient. While the test costs $4,995, Alif Saleh, chief executive officer of Scipher Medicine, which markets the test under the name PrismRA, said in a press release that it has the potential to reduce costs by $19,000 or more per patient per year by avoiding treatments that don’t work. A previous study, which Scipher funded, reported that the test resulted in savings of $7,379 in per-patient costs of ineffective therapy. The same study reported a 25% decrease in costs for ineffective treatments for Medicare-eligible patients.

The price of RA drugs, particularly anti-TNF agents, is hefty and rising. GoodRx has reported that the price of RA drugs increased 92% from 2014 to 2019, and the prices for anti-TNF agents such as etanercept and adalimumab more than doubled in that period. Adalimumab can cost upwards of $84,000 per year while etanercept has a list price of around $72,000 a year. The pharmacy benefit manager WellDyne started covering the test MSRC in February.

Nehad Soloman, MD, a rheumatologist and internist at Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in Glendale and a compensated NETWORK-004 investigator, said the MSRC test would be indicated for confirmed RA patients for whom rheumatologists are considering biologic agents, particularly TNFi drugs. “You wouldn’t do it on an RA patient who’s been on several different medications because it doesn’t serve a purpose at that point,” he said.

The potential cost savings may not be the only reason to use the test, Dr. Soloman said. “You don’t want to be dabbling with the wrong drug if there’s another path you can try and save society some money as well as the time and energy it takes to monitor the patients – as well as the patient’s pain,” he said.
 

How the MSRC test works

The MSRC test detects a signal that’s associated with a high or very high likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies and indicates that the patient is unlikely to achieve low disease activity or remission with TNFi therapies. Response is defined as achieving ACR50 – meaning 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria – at 6 months.

Test results are reported on a continuous 1-25 scale, explained Slava Akmaev, PhD, chief technology officer and head of therapeutics at Scipher. “The higher the score, the more likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies and be unable to reach low disease activity; the lower the score, the less likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies,” he said. However, Dr. Akmaev noted that a low score does not ensure a positive response to TNFi therapies.

The MSRC test differs from the multibiomarker disease activity blood test (MBDA; marketed as Vectra by Myriad Genetics) in the number of biomarkers it measures: 19 RNA transcripts vs. 12 serum protein biomarkers in MBDA. The MBDA test is also intended to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of RA disease activity rather than to predict nonresponse to TNFi or other biologics. A number of studies have validated the MBDA test for predicting disease control in RA patients, but not necessarily response to TNFi therapy.

The “high” category threshold of the MSRC test corresponds to an approximate 90% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, or a 10% chance of responding. The “very high” category threshold corresponds to an approximate 95% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, Dr. Akmaev said.

NETWORK-004 used area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the MSRC test. An AUC of 1 represents 100% accuracy. Overall, the MSRC had an AUC of 0.64, or 64% accuracy of predicting patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapy and to achieve ACR50 at 6 months, with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; P = .0001).

The predictive accuracy went up to 74% with ORs of 3.4-8.8 for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months (P < .01). Among patients who had already been on TNFi therapy, the predictive accuracy was 83% and associated with ORs of 3.3-26.6 based on ACR, 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) metrics.

The investigators also performed an in-cohort cross-validation of the MSRC using baseline blood samples of 245 treatment-naive patients from the CERTAIN study, which yielded a 66% predictive accuracy for the ACR50 outcome at 6 months. Using the 19 RNA transcripts from the test, but not the clinical factors, the predictive accuracy was 62.5%. Using ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28 as measures for 6-month response, the cross-validation analysis of all 23 MSRC features yielded predictive accuracy of 64%-67%.

The study found significant differences in model scores between patients who did and did not have the molecular signal of nonresponse, and the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months based on CDAI and DAS28-CRP measures was greater among those who lacked a molecular signature of nonresponse.

“Those who lack this signature can proceed with TNFi therapy and possibly achieve an increased response rate relative to the unstratified population,” wrote lead study author Stanley B. Cohen, MD, and colleagues.

Daniel E. Furst, MD, emeritus professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the design of the NETWORK-004 study as “excellent,” but said that it didn’t overcome potential issues with the MSRC test itself. “The results unfortunately are great for group data but not for individuals, with a predictive area under the curve of 60% to 80%, it really is not that useful,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a patient who’s not doing well, and I do a test and it’s positive; that still means that 20% of the time you will respond.”

He also noted that he coauthored a paper that used decreases in DAS28 to predict nonresponse to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate with 95% probability in the first 12 weeks of treatment. “That’s closer to what we need,” Dr. Furst said.

However, the MSRC test is a promising sign of where testing for predicting RA therapy is headed, he said. “We are steadily working toward genetic signatures that really are predictive on an individual basis,” Dr. Furst said. “It’s coming; it’s just not here yet.”

Dr. Furst had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Soloman is a paid investigator and consultant to Scipher Medicine.
 

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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