MDedge Cardiology

Updated Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets for health care professionals and the general public now include a contraindication to its use in persons with a history of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after receiving it “or any other adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced.

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) – thrombocytopenia and increased bleeding risk along with documented thrombosis – after administration of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine remains rare. But over all age groups, about one in seven cases have been fatal, said the agency.

“Currently available evidence supports a causal relationship between TTS and the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine,” the provider fact sheet states.

Although TTS associated with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine has been reported in men and women aged 18 and older, the highest reported rate has been for women aged 30-49, the agency states. The rate in that group has been about 1 case per 100,000 doses administered.

Symptoms of TTS may occur 1-2 weeks after administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA says, based on data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Its clinical course shares features with autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. In individuals with suspected TTS following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the agency cautions, the use of heparin “may be harmful and alternative treatments may be needed. Consultation with hematology specialists is strongly recommended.”

The apparent excess risk of TTS remains under investigation, but “the FDA continues to find that the known and potential benefits of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks in individuals 18 years of age and older,” the agency states.

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

Updated Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets for health care professionals and the general public now include a contraindication to its use in persons with a history of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after receiving it “or any other adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced.

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) – thrombocytopenia and increased bleeding risk along with documented thrombosis – after administration of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine remains rare. But over all age groups, about one in seven cases have been fatal, said the agency.

“Currently available evidence supports a causal relationship between TTS and the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine,” the provider fact sheet states.

Although TTS associated with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine has been reported in men and women aged 18 and older, the highest reported rate has been for women aged 30-49, the agency states. The rate in that group has been about 1 case per 100,000 doses administered.

Symptoms of TTS may occur 1-2 weeks after administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA says, based on data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Its clinical course shares features with autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. In individuals with suspected TTS following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the agency cautions, the use of heparin “may be harmful and alternative treatments may be needed. Consultation with hematology specialists is strongly recommended.”

The apparent excess risk of TTS remains under investigation, but “the FDA continues to find that the known and potential benefits of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks in individuals 18 years of age and older,” the agency states.

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

Updated Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets for health care professionals and the general public now include a contraindication to its use in persons with a history of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after receiving it “or any other adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced.

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) – thrombocytopenia and increased bleeding risk along with documented thrombosis – after administration of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine remains rare. But over all age groups, about one in seven cases have been fatal, said the agency.

“Currently available evidence supports a causal relationship between TTS and the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine,” the provider fact sheet states.

Although TTS associated with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine has been reported in men and women aged 18 and older, the highest reported rate has been for women aged 30-49, the agency states. The rate in that group has been about 1 case per 100,000 doses administered.

Symptoms of TTS may occur 1-2 weeks after administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA says, based on data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Its clinical course shares features with autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. In individuals with suspected TTS following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, the agency cautions, the use of heparin “may be harmful and alternative treatments may be needed. Consultation with hematology specialists is strongly recommended.”

The apparent excess risk of TTS remains under investigation, but “the FDA continues to find that the known and potential benefits of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine outweigh its known and potential risks in individuals 18 years of age and older,” the agency states.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Squeezing a little lemonade out of COVID-19

We like to think of ourselves as optimists here at LOTME. A glass is half full, the sky is partly sunny, and our motto is “Always look on the bright side of insanity.” Then again, our motto before that was “LOTME: Where science meets stupid,” so what do we know?

Aleutie/iStock/Getty Images

Anyway, it’s that upbeat, can-do attitude that allows us to say something positive – two somethings, actually – about the insanity that is COVID-19.

Our journey to the bright side begins, oddly enough, in the courtroom. Seems that our old friend, the face mask, is something of a lie-detector aid for juries. The authors of a recent literature review of studies on deception “found that facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal behaviour are an unreliable indicator of deceit,” according to a statement from the University of Portsmouth, where the analysis was conducted.

The one study that directly examined the role of face coverings in court proceedings showed that, “by taking away the distraction of nonverbal behaviours, observers had to rely on speech content, which turned out to be better for detecting lies,” the university said.

The second stage of our positivity trek brings us to the National Trends in Disability Employment monthly update, where we see a fourth consecutive month of gains for people with disabilities despite the larger trend of declines among those without disabilities.

Here are some numbers from the Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability to tell the story: From October to November, the employment-to-population ratio increased 4.2% for working-age people with disabilities, compared with 0.4% for people without disabilities. At the same time, the labor force participation rate rose 2.4% for working-age people with disabilities and just 0.1% for working-age people without disabilities.

Both indicators surpassed their historic highs, Andrew Houtenville, PhD, director of the Institute on Disability, said in the update. “These gains suggest that the restructuring resulting from the pandemic may be benefiting people with disabilities. Ironically, it may have taken a pandemic to shake the labor market loose for people with disabilities.”

And that is how a world-class optimist turns one gigantic lemon into lemonade.
 

Cut the cheese for better sleep

So, we’ve already talked about the TikTok lettuce tea hack that’s supposed to help us sleep better. Well, there’s another food that could have the opposite effect.

seamartini/iStock/Getty Images

According to an article from the BBC, cheese has something of a reputation. Ever since the 1960s, when a researcher noted that one patient’s nightmares stopped after he quit eating an ounce or two of cheddar each night, there’s been speculation that cheese gives you weird dreams. Another study in 2005 suggested certain types of cheese cause certain types of dreams. Blue cheese for vivid dreams and cheddar cheese for celebrity cameos.

But is there any truth to it at all?

Regardless of what we eat, going to bed hungry could cause vivid dreams, according to research by Tore Nielsen, director of the University of Montreal’s dream and nightmare lab. The 2015 study showed that high lactose could have an effect on dreams.

In that study, 17% of participants said their dreams were influenced by what they ate, but the kicker was that dairy products were the foods most reported as causing the weird dreams, the BBC noted.

“It’s likely an indirect effect in that lactose produces symptoms like gas, bloating and diarrhoea and influences dreams, as dreams draw on somatic sources like this. And if you have certain kinds of intolerances, you still may be likely to eat those foods sometimes,” Mr. Nielsen told the BBC.

There’s also the theory that it’s all in the timing of consumption. Are you the type of person to sneak a slice of cheese from the fridge late at night? (Nods.) Same.

“One reason cheese and nightmares come about is that eating later before bed is more likely to disrupt sleep, and cheese can be hard to digest,” said Charlotte Gupta, a research fellow at Central Queensland University in Australia and a coauthor of a 2020 review on how diet affects our sleep.

So as tempting as it is, maybe skip sprinkling Parmesan cheese shreds into your mouth at the open fridge before bed.
 

Teeing up against Parkinson’s

For the nearly 1 million people in the United States with Parkinson’s disease, tai chi is one of the best ways to alleviate the symptoms. The average Parkinson’s patient, however, is going to be on the older side and more likely to view the martial art as some sort of communist plot. And would you participate in a communist plot? We don’t think so.

PxHere

One group of researchers saw that patients weren’t keeping up with their therapy and decided to try a different activity, something that older people would be more likely to stick with. Something a bit more stereotypical. No, not shuffleboard. They tried golf.

“Golf is popular – the most popular sport for people over the age of 55 – which might encourage people to try it and stick with it,” study author Anne-Marie A. Wills, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a Study Finds report.

In a small study, the investigators had a group of patients with Parkinson’s regularly go to a driving range for 10 weeks to hit golf balls (all expenses paid too, and that’s a big deal for golf), while another group continued with their tai chi.

At the end of the study, the 8 patients who went to the driving range had significantly better results in a Parkinson’s mobility test than those of the 12 patients in the tai chi group. In addition, the golf-group participants said they were more likely to continue with their therapy than were those who did tai chi.

Despite the small size of the study, the research team said the results certainly warrant further research. After all, the best sort of therapy is the kind that actually gets done. And golf just gets in your head. The eternal quest to add distance, to straighten out that annoying slice, to stop thinning half your chips, to make those annoying 4-footers. ... Maybe that’s just us.

Squeezing a little lemonade out of COVID-19

We like to think of ourselves as optimists here at LOTME. A glass is half full, the sky is partly sunny, and our motto is “Always look on the bright side of insanity.” Then again, our motto before that was “LOTME: Where science meets stupid,” so what do we know?

Aleutie/iStock/Getty Images

Anyway, it’s that upbeat, can-do attitude that allows us to say something positive – two somethings, actually – about the insanity that is COVID-19.

Our journey to the bright side begins, oddly enough, in the courtroom. Seems that our old friend, the face mask, is something of a lie-detector aid for juries. The authors of a recent literature review of studies on deception “found that facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal behaviour are an unreliable indicator of deceit,” according to a statement from the University of Portsmouth, where the analysis was conducted.

The one study that directly examined the role of face coverings in court proceedings showed that, “by taking away the distraction of nonverbal behaviours, observers had to rely on speech content, which turned out to be better for detecting lies,” the university said.

The second stage of our positivity trek brings us to the National Trends in Disability Employment monthly update, where we see a fourth consecutive month of gains for people with disabilities despite the larger trend of declines among those without disabilities.

Here are some numbers from the Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability to tell the story: From October to November, the employment-to-population ratio increased 4.2% for working-age people with disabilities, compared with 0.4% for people without disabilities. At the same time, the labor force participation rate rose 2.4% for working-age people with disabilities and just 0.1% for working-age people without disabilities.

Both indicators surpassed their historic highs, Andrew Houtenville, PhD, director of the Institute on Disability, said in the update. “These gains suggest that the restructuring resulting from the pandemic may be benefiting people with disabilities. Ironically, it may have taken a pandemic to shake the labor market loose for people with disabilities.”

And that is how a world-class optimist turns one gigantic lemon into lemonade.
 

Cut the cheese for better sleep

So, we’ve already talked about the TikTok lettuce tea hack that’s supposed to help us sleep better. Well, there’s another food that could have the opposite effect.

seamartini/iStock/Getty Images

According to an article from the BBC, cheese has something of a reputation. Ever since the 1960s, when a researcher noted that one patient’s nightmares stopped after he quit eating an ounce or two of cheddar each night, there’s been speculation that cheese gives you weird dreams. Another study in 2005 suggested certain types of cheese cause certain types of dreams. Blue cheese for vivid dreams and cheddar cheese for celebrity cameos.

But is there any truth to it at all?

Regardless of what we eat, going to bed hungry could cause vivid dreams, according to research by Tore Nielsen, director of the University of Montreal’s dream and nightmare lab. The 2015 study showed that high lactose could have an effect on dreams.

In that study, 17% of participants said their dreams were influenced by what they ate, but the kicker was that dairy products were the foods most reported as causing the weird dreams, the BBC noted.

“It’s likely an indirect effect in that lactose produces symptoms like gas, bloating and diarrhoea and influences dreams, as dreams draw on somatic sources like this. And if you have certain kinds of intolerances, you still may be likely to eat those foods sometimes,” Mr. Nielsen told the BBC.

There’s also the theory that it’s all in the timing of consumption. Are you the type of person to sneak a slice of cheese from the fridge late at night? (Nods.) Same.

“One reason cheese and nightmares come about is that eating later before bed is more likely to disrupt sleep, and cheese can be hard to digest,” said Charlotte Gupta, a research fellow at Central Queensland University in Australia and a coauthor of a 2020 review on how diet affects our sleep.

So as tempting as it is, maybe skip sprinkling Parmesan cheese shreds into your mouth at the open fridge before bed.
 

Teeing up against Parkinson’s

For the nearly 1 million people in the United States with Parkinson’s disease, tai chi is one of the best ways to alleviate the symptoms. The average Parkinson’s patient, however, is going to be on the older side and more likely to view the martial art as some sort of communist plot. And would you participate in a communist plot? We don’t think so.

PxHere

One group of researchers saw that patients weren’t keeping up with their therapy and decided to try a different activity, something that older people would be more likely to stick with. Something a bit more stereotypical. No, not shuffleboard. They tried golf.

“Golf is popular – the most popular sport for people over the age of 55 – which might encourage people to try it and stick with it,” study author Anne-Marie A. Wills, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a Study Finds report.

In a small study, the investigators had a group of patients with Parkinson’s regularly go to a driving range for 10 weeks to hit golf balls (all expenses paid too, and that’s a big deal for golf), while another group continued with their tai chi.

At the end of the study, the 8 patients who went to the driving range had significantly better results in a Parkinson’s mobility test than those of the 12 patients in the tai chi group. In addition, the golf-group participants said they were more likely to continue with their therapy than were those who did tai chi.

Despite the small size of the study, the research team said the results certainly warrant further research. After all, the best sort of therapy is the kind that actually gets done. And golf just gets in your head. The eternal quest to add distance, to straighten out that annoying slice, to stop thinning half your chips, to make those annoying 4-footers. ... Maybe that’s just us.

Squeezing a little lemonade out of COVID-19

We like to think of ourselves as optimists here at LOTME. A glass is half full, the sky is partly sunny, and our motto is “Always look on the bright side of insanity.” Then again, our motto before that was “LOTME: Where science meets stupid,” so what do we know?

Aleutie/iStock/Getty Images

Anyway, it’s that upbeat, can-do attitude that allows us to say something positive – two somethings, actually – about the insanity that is COVID-19.

Our journey to the bright side begins, oddly enough, in the courtroom. Seems that our old friend, the face mask, is something of a lie-detector aid for juries. The authors of a recent literature review of studies on deception “found that facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal behaviour are an unreliable indicator of deceit,” according to a statement from the University of Portsmouth, where the analysis was conducted.

The one study that directly examined the role of face coverings in court proceedings showed that, “by taking away the distraction of nonverbal behaviours, observers had to rely on speech content, which turned out to be better for detecting lies,” the university said.

The second stage of our positivity trek brings us to the National Trends in Disability Employment monthly update, where we see a fourth consecutive month of gains for people with disabilities despite the larger trend of declines among those without disabilities.

Here are some numbers from the Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability to tell the story: From October to November, the employment-to-population ratio increased 4.2% for working-age people with disabilities, compared with 0.4% for people without disabilities. At the same time, the labor force participation rate rose 2.4% for working-age people with disabilities and just 0.1% for working-age people without disabilities.

Both indicators surpassed their historic highs, Andrew Houtenville, PhD, director of the Institute on Disability, said in the update. “These gains suggest that the restructuring resulting from the pandemic may be benefiting people with disabilities. Ironically, it may have taken a pandemic to shake the labor market loose for people with disabilities.”

And that is how a world-class optimist turns one gigantic lemon into lemonade.
 

Cut the cheese for better sleep

So, we’ve already talked about the TikTok lettuce tea hack that’s supposed to help us sleep better. Well, there’s another food that could have the opposite effect.

seamartini/iStock/Getty Images

According to an article from the BBC, cheese has something of a reputation. Ever since the 1960s, when a researcher noted that one patient’s nightmares stopped after he quit eating an ounce or two of cheddar each night, there’s been speculation that cheese gives you weird dreams. Another study in 2005 suggested certain types of cheese cause certain types of dreams. Blue cheese for vivid dreams and cheddar cheese for celebrity cameos.

But is there any truth to it at all?

Regardless of what we eat, going to bed hungry could cause vivid dreams, according to research by Tore Nielsen, director of the University of Montreal’s dream and nightmare lab. The 2015 study showed that high lactose could have an effect on dreams.

In that study, 17% of participants said their dreams were influenced by what they ate, but the kicker was that dairy products were the foods most reported as causing the weird dreams, the BBC noted.

“It’s likely an indirect effect in that lactose produces symptoms like gas, bloating and diarrhoea and influences dreams, as dreams draw on somatic sources like this. And if you have certain kinds of intolerances, you still may be likely to eat those foods sometimes,” Mr. Nielsen told the BBC.

There’s also the theory that it’s all in the timing of consumption. Are you the type of person to sneak a slice of cheese from the fridge late at night? (Nods.) Same.

“One reason cheese and nightmares come about is that eating later before bed is more likely to disrupt sleep, and cheese can be hard to digest,” said Charlotte Gupta, a research fellow at Central Queensland University in Australia and a coauthor of a 2020 review on how diet affects our sleep.

So as tempting as it is, maybe skip sprinkling Parmesan cheese shreds into your mouth at the open fridge before bed.
 

Teeing up against Parkinson’s

For the nearly 1 million people in the United States with Parkinson’s disease, tai chi is one of the best ways to alleviate the symptoms. The average Parkinson’s patient, however, is going to be on the older side and more likely to view the martial art as some sort of communist plot. And would you participate in a communist plot? We don’t think so.

PxHere

One group of researchers saw that patients weren’t keeping up with their therapy and decided to try a different activity, something that older people would be more likely to stick with. Something a bit more stereotypical. No, not shuffleboard. They tried golf.

“Golf is popular – the most popular sport for people over the age of 55 – which might encourage people to try it and stick with it,” study author Anne-Marie A. Wills, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a Study Finds report.

In a small study, the investigators had a group of patients with Parkinson’s regularly go to a driving range for 10 weeks to hit golf balls (all expenses paid too, and that’s a big deal for golf), while another group continued with their tai chi.

At the end of the study, the 8 patients who went to the driving range had significantly better results in a Parkinson’s mobility test than those of the 12 patients in the tai chi group. In addition, the golf-group participants said they were more likely to continue with their therapy than were those who did tai chi.

Despite the small size of the study, the research team said the results certainly warrant further research. After all, the best sort of therapy is the kind that actually gets done. And golf just gets in your head. The eternal quest to add distance, to straighten out that annoying slice, to stop thinning half your chips, to make those annoying 4-footers. ... Maybe that’s just us.

Highly selected low-risk patients can be safely sent home about 24 hours after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when supported by intense, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up, a prospective study suggests for the first time.

The risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in STEMI patients following an early hospital discharge (EHD) pathway was similar at 9 months to that seen for propensity-matched historic control subjects who met the same EHD criteria but were discharged later than 48 hours.

The stay in almost half (48%) the early discharge group was 24 hours or less, according to the study, published Dec. 13 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve shown that if we use appropriate risk criteria and instigate the appropriate, safe follow-up that it’s safe to select and discharge low-risk patients at an earlier time period, such as 24 hours,” senior author Daniel A. Jones, PhD, Barts Heart Centre, London, this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s one center in one city in the world,” he said. “Whether it’s applicable at other heart site centers, I believe it is, but I think we need more data to be able to change guidelines.”

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines say that select patients should be considered for early discharge 48 to 72 hours after STEMI, but the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized the team to try and push that window.

“The COVID pandemic essentially brought a focus on resources, on minimizing the risk to our patient population in terms of catching COVID within hospital,” he said. “It became clear that to maintain the heart site service, we probably needed to get people out a bit quicker than we did before, so we came up with this pathway.”

Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients presenting with STEMI were entered into the EHD pathway if they met the following pre-existing criteria for 48- to 72-hour discharge:

• Left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or greater
• Successful primary PCI with TIMI flow grade 3
• Absence of bystander disease requiring inpatient revascularization
• No recurrent ischemic symptoms
• No heart failure
• No significant arrhythmias
• No hemodynamic instability
• No significant comorbidity
• Suitable social circumstances for early discharge

The patients were given cardiac rehabilitation counseling over the phone within 48 hours and blood pressure machines if not available at home. At weeks 2 and 8, they spoke virtually with a dedicated cardiology advanced care practitioner who up-titrated medications and answered any questions. At week 12, they were seen by an interventional cardiologist or at a high-risk prevention clinic.

Their mean age was 59.2 years, 86% were male, the median symptom-to-balloon time was 80 minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 50 minutes.

The early discharge patients were compared with 700 historic control subjects who met the EHD criteria and were discharged after 48 hours from Oct. 2018 to June 2021 and 560 patients discharged on standard-care pathways between April 2020 and June 2021.

Those discharged after 48 hours were more likely to have an anterior MI, multivessel disease, and multivessel PCI.
 

Comparable outcomes

The median length of stay was 24.6 hours (minimum 17 hours, maximum 40 hours) for the EHD group, 56.1 hours for historic control subjects, and 78.9 hours for the standard-care group.

The introduction of the EHD pathway significantly reduced the overall length of stay for all STEMI patients compared with the pre-pathway period of Oct. 2018 to March 2020 (median, 3 vs. 2 days; P < .0001).

Length of stay varied among patients; however, 420 patients stayed 1 less night in the hospital with the remaining patients staying about 8 to 12 fewer hours, resulting in approximate savings of £450,000, the authors note.

Over a median follow-up of 271 days, there were no cardiovascular deaths, two deaths from COVID-19, and a MACE rate of 1.2% (two deaths, three unscheduled revascularizations, and two further MI presentations) in the EHD group. That compares with a 0.7% mortality and 1.9% rate of MACE among historic control subjects, neither of which were significantly different.

There was also no difference in mortality (0.34% vs. 0.69%; P = .410) or MACE (1.2% vs. 1.9%; P = .342) among 560 pairs of propensity-matched EHD patients and historic control subjects.

Mortality was 4.1% in the standard-care group; cardiovascular mortality was 2.2%, and the rate of MACE was 8.6%.

When patients were surveyed, 85% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the EHD pathway, whereas 73% of control and standard-care patients were satisfied with their care. Three-fourths of EHD patients also reported saving money and 62.5% saved time off work because of the virtual follow-up.
 

Judgment calls

“They didn’t really tell us much about the patients who didn’t qualify into this ultra–low-risk group but, obviously, it’s highly selected,” Cindy Grines, MD, Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Lawrenceville, Georgia, said in an interview. “In the U.S., you don’t get those chest pain onset-to-reperfusion in 80 minutes. So that was really kind of shocking.”

It also suggests that early discharge was applied to patients who may have had minimal myocardial damage from the STEMI, she suggested. “Even in their own hospital system, a lot of patients who met the criteria on paper were kept longer than 48 hours. So a lot of it’s a judgment call.”

Additional red flags where physicians may overrule the early discharge protocol are very late perfusion, advanced age, severe renal insufficiency, profound anemia, cardiac arrest requiring more than brief resuscitation, bleeding complications, or symptomatic coronavirus, Dr. Grines and J. Jeffrey Marshall, MD, also from Northside, observe in an accompanying editorial.

About 60% of patients were suitable for the EHD pathway, Dr. Jones said. “Typically, they are quite low risk, but we still had four in 10 anterior infarct, and about 25% had left ventricular function between 40% and 45%. So even though the majority are low risk, there are patients in there that you would consider to have had a decent infarct.”

“I think this is applicable to patients at most centers, and probably anywhere between a third to a fifth of all patients presenting to heart centers would be suitable for this discharge pathway,” he said.

Dr. Grines said the pathway is “definitely feasible” but there aren’t enough patients studied to know with 100% certainty whether it’s safe. A single observational study also isn’t enough to change guidelines, which in the United States do not comment on length of stay.

“In the ultra-low-risk patients – such as the ones where you got them in very early and you almost aborted the infarct or if it was a very small infarct – you can kind of treat them like an unstable angina patient, where you can do the PCI and potentially discharge them in 24 hours,” Dr. Grines said. “I think most of us might agree on that.”

“The other thing you have to weigh is the risk/benefit ratio,” she said. “If you have no beds available, you end up rationing care to some extent. So if you have a patient that’s otherwise doing well after a very small MI and have an emergency room full of people that need to be admitted and they’re sicker, then you end up making those judgment calls.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that current guidelines are based largely on observational data and that the team is planning to pilot the EHD pathway at five to 10 centers around the United Kingdom or potentially in Europe or the United States.

“This is an area where a [randomized controlled trial] RCT would be expensive, whereas a well-coordinated multicenter registry would probably provide enough information to change guidelines,” he said. “We’re not suggesting that every STEMI patient is suitable, but people that are low risk that you would already be considering for early discharge I think can go a bit quicker.”

Dr. Jones has received funding from the Barts Charity and financial support for blood pressure machines from the Barts Guild. First author Krishnaraj Rathod has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Research in the form of an Academic Clinical Lectureship. All other authors, Dr. Grines, and Dr. Marshall report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly selected low-risk patients can be safely sent home about 24 hours after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when supported by intense, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up, a prospective study suggests for the first time.

The risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in STEMI patients following an early hospital discharge (EHD) pathway was similar at 9 months to that seen for propensity-matched historic control subjects who met the same EHD criteria but were discharged later than 48 hours.

The stay in almost half (48%) the early discharge group was 24 hours or less, according to the study, published Dec. 13 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve shown that if we use appropriate risk criteria and instigate the appropriate, safe follow-up that it’s safe to select and discharge low-risk patients at an earlier time period, such as 24 hours,” senior author Daniel A. Jones, PhD, Barts Heart Centre, London, this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s one center in one city in the world,” he said. “Whether it’s applicable at other heart site centers, I believe it is, but I think we need more data to be able to change guidelines.”

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines say that select patients should be considered for early discharge 48 to 72 hours after STEMI, but the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized the team to try and push that window.

“The COVID pandemic essentially brought a focus on resources, on minimizing the risk to our patient population in terms of catching COVID within hospital,” he said. “It became clear that to maintain the heart site service, we probably needed to get people out a bit quicker than we did before, so we came up with this pathway.”

Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients presenting with STEMI were entered into the EHD pathway if they met the following pre-existing criteria for 48- to 72-hour discharge:

• Left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or greater
• Successful primary PCI with TIMI flow grade 3
• Absence of bystander disease requiring inpatient revascularization
• No recurrent ischemic symptoms
• No heart failure
• No significant arrhythmias
• No hemodynamic instability
• No significant comorbidity
• Suitable social circumstances for early discharge

The patients were given cardiac rehabilitation counseling over the phone within 48 hours and blood pressure machines if not available at home. At weeks 2 and 8, they spoke virtually with a dedicated cardiology advanced care practitioner who up-titrated medications and answered any questions. At week 12, they were seen by an interventional cardiologist or at a high-risk prevention clinic.

Their mean age was 59.2 years, 86% were male, the median symptom-to-balloon time was 80 minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 50 minutes.

The early discharge patients were compared with 700 historic control subjects who met the EHD criteria and were discharged after 48 hours from Oct. 2018 to June 2021 and 560 patients discharged on standard-care pathways between April 2020 and June 2021.

Those discharged after 48 hours were more likely to have an anterior MI, multivessel disease, and multivessel PCI.
 

Comparable outcomes

The median length of stay was 24.6 hours (minimum 17 hours, maximum 40 hours) for the EHD group, 56.1 hours for historic control subjects, and 78.9 hours for the standard-care group.

The introduction of the EHD pathway significantly reduced the overall length of stay for all STEMI patients compared with the pre-pathway period of Oct. 2018 to March 2020 (median, 3 vs. 2 days; P < .0001).

Length of stay varied among patients; however, 420 patients stayed 1 less night in the hospital with the remaining patients staying about 8 to 12 fewer hours, resulting in approximate savings of £450,000, the authors note.

Over a median follow-up of 271 days, there were no cardiovascular deaths, two deaths from COVID-19, and a MACE rate of 1.2% (two deaths, three unscheduled revascularizations, and two further MI presentations) in the EHD group. That compares with a 0.7% mortality and 1.9% rate of MACE among historic control subjects, neither of which were significantly different.

There was also no difference in mortality (0.34% vs. 0.69%; P = .410) or MACE (1.2% vs. 1.9%; P = .342) among 560 pairs of propensity-matched EHD patients and historic control subjects.

Mortality was 4.1% in the standard-care group; cardiovascular mortality was 2.2%, and the rate of MACE was 8.6%.

When patients were surveyed, 85% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the EHD pathway, whereas 73% of control and standard-care patients were satisfied with their care. Three-fourths of EHD patients also reported saving money and 62.5% saved time off work because of the virtual follow-up.
 

Judgment calls

“They didn’t really tell us much about the patients who didn’t qualify into this ultra–low-risk group but, obviously, it’s highly selected,” Cindy Grines, MD, Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Lawrenceville, Georgia, said in an interview. “In the U.S., you don’t get those chest pain onset-to-reperfusion in 80 minutes. So that was really kind of shocking.”

It also suggests that early discharge was applied to patients who may have had minimal myocardial damage from the STEMI, she suggested. “Even in their own hospital system, a lot of patients who met the criteria on paper were kept longer than 48 hours. So a lot of it’s a judgment call.”

Additional red flags where physicians may overrule the early discharge protocol are very late perfusion, advanced age, severe renal insufficiency, profound anemia, cardiac arrest requiring more than brief resuscitation, bleeding complications, or symptomatic coronavirus, Dr. Grines and J. Jeffrey Marshall, MD, also from Northside, observe in an accompanying editorial.

About 60% of patients were suitable for the EHD pathway, Dr. Jones said. “Typically, they are quite low risk, but we still had four in 10 anterior infarct, and about 25% had left ventricular function between 40% and 45%. So even though the majority are low risk, there are patients in there that you would consider to have had a decent infarct.”

“I think this is applicable to patients at most centers, and probably anywhere between a third to a fifth of all patients presenting to heart centers would be suitable for this discharge pathway,” he said.

Dr. Grines said the pathway is “definitely feasible” but there aren’t enough patients studied to know with 100% certainty whether it’s safe. A single observational study also isn’t enough to change guidelines, which in the United States do not comment on length of stay.

“In the ultra-low-risk patients – such as the ones where you got them in very early and you almost aborted the infarct or if it was a very small infarct – you can kind of treat them like an unstable angina patient, where you can do the PCI and potentially discharge them in 24 hours,” Dr. Grines said. “I think most of us might agree on that.”

“The other thing you have to weigh is the risk/benefit ratio,” she said. “If you have no beds available, you end up rationing care to some extent. So if you have a patient that’s otherwise doing well after a very small MI and have an emergency room full of people that need to be admitted and they’re sicker, then you end up making those judgment calls.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that current guidelines are based largely on observational data and that the team is planning to pilot the EHD pathway at five to 10 centers around the United Kingdom or potentially in Europe or the United States.

“This is an area where a [randomized controlled trial] RCT would be expensive, whereas a well-coordinated multicenter registry would probably provide enough information to change guidelines,” he said. “We’re not suggesting that every STEMI patient is suitable, but people that are low risk that you would already be considering for early discharge I think can go a bit quicker.”

Dr. Jones has received funding from the Barts Charity and financial support for blood pressure machines from the Barts Guild. First author Krishnaraj Rathod has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Research in the form of an Academic Clinical Lectureship. All other authors, Dr. Grines, and Dr. Marshall report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly selected low-risk patients can be safely sent home about 24 hours after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when supported by intense, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up, a prospective study suggests for the first time.

The risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in STEMI patients following an early hospital discharge (EHD) pathway was similar at 9 months to that seen for propensity-matched historic control subjects who met the same EHD criteria but were discharged later than 48 hours.

The stay in almost half (48%) the early discharge group was 24 hours or less, according to the study, published Dec. 13 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve shown that if we use appropriate risk criteria and instigate the appropriate, safe follow-up that it’s safe to select and discharge low-risk patients at an earlier time period, such as 24 hours,” senior author Daniel A. Jones, PhD, Barts Heart Centre, London, this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s one center in one city in the world,” he said. “Whether it’s applicable at other heart site centers, I believe it is, but I think we need more data to be able to change guidelines.”

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines say that select patients should be considered for early discharge 48 to 72 hours after STEMI, but the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized the team to try and push that window.

“The COVID pandemic essentially brought a focus on resources, on minimizing the risk to our patient population in terms of catching COVID within hospital,” he said. “It became clear that to maintain the heart site service, we probably needed to get people out a bit quicker than we did before, so we came up with this pathway.”

Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients presenting with STEMI were entered into the EHD pathway if they met the following pre-existing criteria for 48- to 72-hour discharge:

• Left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or greater
• Successful primary PCI with TIMI flow grade 3
• Absence of bystander disease requiring inpatient revascularization
• No recurrent ischemic symptoms
• No heart failure
• No significant arrhythmias
• No hemodynamic instability
• No significant comorbidity
• Suitable social circumstances for early discharge

The patients were given cardiac rehabilitation counseling over the phone within 48 hours and blood pressure machines if not available at home. At weeks 2 and 8, they spoke virtually with a dedicated cardiology advanced care practitioner who up-titrated medications and answered any questions. At week 12, they were seen by an interventional cardiologist or at a high-risk prevention clinic.

Their mean age was 59.2 years, 86% were male, the median symptom-to-balloon time was 80 minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 50 minutes.

The early discharge patients were compared with 700 historic control subjects who met the EHD criteria and were discharged after 48 hours from Oct. 2018 to June 2021 and 560 patients discharged on standard-care pathways between April 2020 and June 2021.

Those discharged after 48 hours were more likely to have an anterior MI, multivessel disease, and multivessel PCI.
 

Comparable outcomes

The median length of stay was 24.6 hours (minimum 17 hours, maximum 40 hours) for the EHD group, 56.1 hours for historic control subjects, and 78.9 hours for the standard-care group.

The introduction of the EHD pathway significantly reduced the overall length of stay for all STEMI patients compared with the pre-pathway period of Oct. 2018 to March 2020 (median, 3 vs. 2 days; P < .0001).

Length of stay varied among patients; however, 420 patients stayed 1 less night in the hospital with the remaining patients staying about 8 to 12 fewer hours, resulting in approximate savings of £450,000, the authors note.

Over a median follow-up of 271 days, there were no cardiovascular deaths, two deaths from COVID-19, and a MACE rate of 1.2% (two deaths, three unscheduled revascularizations, and two further MI presentations) in the EHD group. That compares with a 0.7% mortality and 1.9% rate of MACE among historic control subjects, neither of which were significantly different.

There was also no difference in mortality (0.34% vs. 0.69%; P = .410) or MACE (1.2% vs. 1.9%; P = .342) among 560 pairs of propensity-matched EHD patients and historic control subjects.

Mortality was 4.1% in the standard-care group; cardiovascular mortality was 2.2%, and the rate of MACE was 8.6%.

When patients were surveyed, 85% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the EHD pathway, whereas 73% of control and standard-care patients were satisfied with their care. Three-fourths of EHD patients also reported saving money and 62.5% saved time off work because of the virtual follow-up.
 

Judgment calls

“They didn’t really tell us much about the patients who didn’t qualify into this ultra–low-risk group but, obviously, it’s highly selected,” Cindy Grines, MD, Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Lawrenceville, Georgia, said in an interview. “In the U.S., you don’t get those chest pain onset-to-reperfusion in 80 minutes. So that was really kind of shocking.”

It also suggests that early discharge was applied to patients who may have had minimal myocardial damage from the STEMI, she suggested. “Even in their own hospital system, a lot of patients who met the criteria on paper were kept longer than 48 hours. So a lot of it’s a judgment call.”

Additional red flags where physicians may overrule the early discharge protocol are very late perfusion, advanced age, severe renal insufficiency, profound anemia, cardiac arrest requiring more than brief resuscitation, bleeding complications, or symptomatic coronavirus, Dr. Grines and J. Jeffrey Marshall, MD, also from Northside, observe in an accompanying editorial.

About 60% of patients were suitable for the EHD pathway, Dr. Jones said. “Typically, they are quite low risk, but we still had four in 10 anterior infarct, and about 25% had left ventricular function between 40% and 45%. So even though the majority are low risk, there are patients in there that you would consider to have had a decent infarct.”

“I think this is applicable to patients at most centers, and probably anywhere between a third to a fifth of all patients presenting to heart centers would be suitable for this discharge pathway,” he said.

Dr. Grines said the pathway is “definitely feasible” but there aren’t enough patients studied to know with 100% certainty whether it’s safe. A single observational study also isn’t enough to change guidelines, which in the United States do not comment on length of stay.

“In the ultra-low-risk patients – such as the ones where you got them in very early and you almost aborted the infarct or if it was a very small infarct – you can kind of treat them like an unstable angina patient, where you can do the PCI and potentially discharge them in 24 hours,” Dr. Grines said. “I think most of us might agree on that.”

“The other thing you have to weigh is the risk/benefit ratio,” she said. “If you have no beds available, you end up rationing care to some extent. So if you have a patient that’s otherwise doing well after a very small MI and have an emergency room full of people that need to be admitted and they’re sicker, then you end up making those judgment calls.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that current guidelines are based largely on observational data and that the team is planning to pilot the EHD pathway at five to 10 centers around the United Kingdom or potentially in Europe or the United States.

“This is an area where a [randomized controlled trial] RCT would be expensive, whereas a well-coordinated multicenter registry would probably provide enough information to change guidelines,” he said. “We’re not suggesting that every STEMI patient is suitable, but people that are low risk that you would already be considering for early discharge I think can go a bit quicker.”

Dr. Jones has received funding from the Barts Charity and financial support for blood pressure machines from the Barts Guild. First author Krishnaraj Rathod has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Research in the form of an Academic Clinical Lectureship. All other authors, Dr. Grines, and Dr. Marshall report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients with sleep disorders had higher levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as a higher risk of developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.

“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”

To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.

The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).

To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”

Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).

“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.

Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”

“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”

Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.

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

Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients with sleep disorders had higher levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as a higher risk of developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.

“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”

To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.

The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).

To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”

Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).

“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.

Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”

“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”

Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.

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

Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients with sleep disorders had higher levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as a higher risk of developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.

“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”

To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.

The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).

To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”

Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).

“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.

Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”

“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”

Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.