MDedge Cardiology

In an ideal world, people could afford sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), and clinicians would be allowed to prescribe it using clinical judgment as their guide. The imprimatur of an “[Food and Drug Administration]–labeled indication” would be unnecessary.

This is not our world. Guideline writers, third-party payers, and FDA regulators now play major roles in clinical decisions.

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In December 2020, an FDA advisory committee voted 12-1 in support of a vaguely worded question: Does PARAGON-HF provide sufficient evidence to support any indication for the drug in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)? The committee did not reach a consensus on what that indication should be.

Before I list five reasons why I hope the FDA does not approve the drug for any indication in patients with HFpEF, let’s review the seminal trial.
 

PARAGON-HF

PARAGON-HF randomly assigned slightly more than 4,800 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan alone. The primary endpoint was total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and death because of cardiovascular (CV) events.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rate of the primary endpoint by 13% (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .06). There were 894 primary endpoint events in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, compared with 1,009 events in the valsartan arm.

The lower rate of events in the sacubitril/valsartan arm was driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure. CV death was essentially the same in both arms (204 deaths in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus 212 deaths in the valsartan group).

A note on the patients: the investigators screened more than 10,000 patients and enrolled less than half of them. The mean age was 73 years; 52% of patients were women, but only 2% were Black. The mean LVEF was 57%; 95% of patients had hypertension and were receiving diuretics at baseline.

Now to the five reasons not to approve the drug for this indication.
 

1. Uncertainty of benefit in HFpEF

A P value for the primary endpoint greater than the threshold of .05 suggests some degree of uncertainty. A nice way of describing this uncertainty is with a Bayesian analysis. Whereas a P value tells you the chance of seeing these results if the drug has no benefit, the Bayesian approach tells you the chance of drug benefit given the trial results.

By email, James Brophy, MD, a senior scientist in the Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at McGill University, Montreal, showed me a Bayesian calculation of PARAGON-HF. He estimated a 38% chance that sacubitril/valsartan had a clinically meaningful 15% reduction in the primary endpoint, a 3% chance that it worsens outcomes, and a 58% chance that it is essentially no better than valsartan.

The take-home is that, in PARAGON-HF, a best-case scenario involving select high-risk patients with run-in periods and trial-level follow-up, there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the drug is any better than a generic standard.
 

2. Modest effect size in PARAGON-HF

Let’s assume the benefit seen in PARAGON-HF is not caused by chance. Was the effect clinically significant?

For context, consider the large effect size that sacubitril/valsartan had versus enalapril for patients with HFrEF.

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 20% reduction in the composite primary endpoint. Importantly, this included equal reductions in both HHF and CV death. All-cause death was also significantly reduced in the active arm.

Because patients with HFpEF have a similarly poor prognosis as those with HFrEF, a truly beneficial drug should reduce not only HHF but also CV death and overall death. The lack of effect on these “harder” endpoints in PARAGON-HF points to a far more modest effect size for sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF.

What’s more, even the signal of reduced HHF in PARAGON-HF is tenuous. The PARAGON-HF authors chose total HHF, whereas previous trials in patients with HFpEF used first HHF as their primary endpoint. Had PARAGON-HF followed the methods of prior trials, first HHF would not have made statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04)
 

3. Subgroups not compelling

Proponents highlight the possibility that sacubitril/valsartan exerted a heterogenous effect in two subgroups.

In women, sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90), whereas men showed no significant difference (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.25). And the drug seemed to have little benefit over valsartan in patients with a median LVEF greater than 57%.

The problem with subgroups is that, if you look at enough of them, some can be positive on the basis of chance alone. For instance, patients enrolled in western Europe had an outsized benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients from other areas.

FDA reviewers noted: “It is possible that the heterogeneity of treatment effect observed in the subgroups by gender and LVEF in PARAGON-HF is a chance finding.”

By email, clinical trial expert Sanjay Kaul, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, expressed serious concern with the subgroup analyses in PARAGON-HF because the sex interaction was confined to HHF alone. There was no interaction for other outcomes, such as CV death, all-cause mortality, renal endpoints, blood pressure, or lowering of N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Similarly, the interaction with ejection fraction was confined to total HHF; it was not seen with New York Heart Association class improvement, all-cause mortality, quality of life, renal endpoints, or time to first event.

Dr. Kaul also emphasized something cardiologists know well, “that ejection fraction is not a static variable and is expected to change during the course of the trial.” This point makes it hard to believe that a partially subjective measurement, such as LVEF, could be a precise modifier of benefit.
 

4. Approval would stop research

If the FDA approves sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HFpEF, there is a near-zero chance we will learn whether there are subsets of patients who benefit more or less from the drug.

It will be the defibrillator problem all over again. Namely, while the average effect of a defibrillator is to reduce mortality in patients with HFrEF, in approximately 9 of 10 patients the implanted device is never used. Efforts to find subgroups that are most likely to need (or not need) an implantable defibrillator have been impossible because industry has no incentive to fund trials that may narrow the number of patients who qualify for their product.

It will be the same with sacubitril/valsartan. This is not nefarious; it is merely a limitation of industry funding of trials.
 

5. Opportunity costs

The category of HFpEF is vast.

FDA approval – even for a subset of these patients – would have huge cost implications. I understand cost issues are considered outside the purview of the FDA, but health care spending isn’t infinite. Money spent covering this costly drug is money not available for other things.

Despite this nation’s wealth, we struggle to provide even basic care to large numbers of people. Approval of an expensive drug with no or modest benefit will only exacerbate these stark disparities.
 

Conclusion

Given our current system of health care delivery, my pragmatic answer is for the FDA to say no to sacubitril/valsartan for HFpEF.

If you believe the drug has outsized benefits in women or those with mild impairment of systolic function, the way to answer these questions is not with subgroup analyses from a trial that did not reach statistical significance in its primary endpoint, but with more randomized trials. Isn’t that what “exploratory” subgroups are for?

Holding off on an indication for HFpEF will force proponents to define a subset of patients who garner a clear and substantial benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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

In an ideal world, people could afford sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), and clinicians would be allowed to prescribe it using clinical judgment as their guide. The imprimatur of an “[Food and Drug Administration]–labeled indication” would be unnecessary.

This is not our world. Guideline writers, third-party payers, and FDA regulators now play major roles in clinical decisions.

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In December 2020, an FDA advisory committee voted 12-1 in support of a vaguely worded question: Does PARAGON-HF provide sufficient evidence to support any indication for the drug in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)? The committee did not reach a consensus on what that indication should be.

Before I list five reasons why I hope the FDA does not approve the drug for any indication in patients with HFpEF, let’s review the seminal trial.
 

PARAGON-HF

PARAGON-HF randomly assigned slightly more than 4,800 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan alone. The primary endpoint was total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and death because of cardiovascular (CV) events.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rate of the primary endpoint by 13% (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .06). There were 894 primary endpoint events in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, compared with 1,009 events in the valsartan arm.

The lower rate of events in the sacubitril/valsartan arm was driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure. CV death was essentially the same in both arms (204 deaths in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus 212 deaths in the valsartan group).

A note on the patients: the investigators screened more than 10,000 patients and enrolled less than half of them. The mean age was 73 years; 52% of patients were women, but only 2% were Black. The mean LVEF was 57%; 95% of patients had hypertension and were receiving diuretics at baseline.

Now to the five reasons not to approve the drug for this indication.
 

1. Uncertainty of benefit in HFpEF

A P value for the primary endpoint greater than the threshold of .05 suggests some degree of uncertainty. A nice way of describing this uncertainty is with a Bayesian analysis. Whereas a P value tells you the chance of seeing these results if the drug has no benefit, the Bayesian approach tells you the chance of drug benefit given the trial results.

By email, James Brophy, MD, a senior scientist in the Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at McGill University, Montreal, showed me a Bayesian calculation of PARAGON-HF. He estimated a 38% chance that sacubitril/valsartan had a clinically meaningful 15% reduction in the primary endpoint, a 3% chance that it worsens outcomes, and a 58% chance that it is essentially no better than valsartan.

The take-home is that, in PARAGON-HF, a best-case scenario involving select high-risk patients with run-in periods and trial-level follow-up, there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the drug is any better than a generic standard.
 

2. Modest effect size in PARAGON-HF

Let’s assume the benefit seen in PARAGON-HF is not caused by chance. Was the effect clinically significant?

For context, consider the large effect size that sacubitril/valsartan had versus enalapril for patients with HFrEF.

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 20% reduction in the composite primary endpoint. Importantly, this included equal reductions in both HHF and CV death. All-cause death was also significantly reduced in the active arm.

Because patients with HFpEF have a similarly poor prognosis as those with HFrEF, a truly beneficial drug should reduce not only HHF but also CV death and overall death. The lack of effect on these “harder” endpoints in PARAGON-HF points to a far more modest effect size for sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF.

What’s more, even the signal of reduced HHF in PARAGON-HF is tenuous. The PARAGON-HF authors chose total HHF, whereas previous trials in patients with HFpEF used first HHF as their primary endpoint. Had PARAGON-HF followed the methods of prior trials, first HHF would not have made statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04)
 

3. Subgroups not compelling

Proponents highlight the possibility that sacubitril/valsartan exerted a heterogenous effect in two subgroups.

In women, sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90), whereas men showed no significant difference (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.25). And the drug seemed to have little benefit over valsartan in patients with a median LVEF greater than 57%.

The problem with subgroups is that, if you look at enough of them, some can be positive on the basis of chance alone. For instance, patients enrolled in western Europe had an outsized benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients from other areas.

FDA reviewers noted: “It is possible that the heterogeneity of treatment effect observed in the subgroups by gender and LVEF in PARAGON-HF is a chance finding.”

By email, clinical trial expert Sanjay Kaul, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, expressed serious concern with the subgroup analyses in PARAGON-HF because the sex interaction was confined to HHF alone. There was no interaction for other outcomes, such as CV death, all-cause mortality, renal endpoints, blood pressure, or lowering of N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Similarly, the interaction with ejection fraction was confined to total HHF; it was not seen with New York Heart Association class improvement, all-cause mortality, quality of life, renal endpoints, or time to first event.

Dr. Kaul also emphasized something cardiologists know well, “that ejection fraction is not a static variable and is expected to change during the course of the trial.” This point makes it hard to believe that a partially subjective measurement, such as LVEF, could be a precise modifier of benefit.
 

4. Approval would stop research

If the FDA approves sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HFpEF, there is a near-zero chance we will learn whether there are subsets of patients who benefit more or less from the drug.

It will be the defibrillator problem all over again. Namely, while the average effect of a defibrillator is to reduce mortality in patients with HFrEF, in approximately 9 of 10 patients the implanted device is never used. Efforts to find subgroups that are most likely to need (or not need) an implantable defibrillator have been impossible because industry has no incentive to fund trials that may narrow the number of patients who qualify for their product.

It will be the same with sacubitril/valsartan. This is not nefarious; it is merely a limitation of industry funding of trials.
 

5. Opportunity costs

The category of HFpEF is vast.

FDA approval – even for a subset of these patients – would have huge cost implications. I understand cost issues are considered outside the purview of the FDA, but health care spending isn’t infinite. Money spent covering this costly drug is money not available for other things.

Despite this nation’s wealth, we struggle to provide even basic care to large numbers of people. Approval of an expensive drug with no or modest benefit will only exacerbate these stark disparities.
 

Conclusion

Given our current system of health care delivery, my pragmatic answer is for the FDA to say no to sacubitril/valsartan for HFpEF.

If you believe the drug has outsized benefits in women or those with mild impairment of systolic function, the way to answer these questions is not with subgroup analyses from a trial that did not reach statistical significance in its primary endpoint, but with more randomized trials. Isn’t that what “exploratory” subgroups are for?

Holding off on an indication for HFpEF will force proponents to define a subset of patients who garner a clear and substantial benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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

In an ideal world, people could afford sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), and clinicians would be allowed to prescribe it using clinical judgment as their guide. The imprimatur of an “[Food and Drug Administration]–labeled indication” would be unnecessary.

This is not our world. Guideline writers, third-party payers, and FDA regulators now play major roles in clinical decisions.

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In December 2020, an FDA advisory committee voted 12-1 in support of a vaguely worded question: Does PARAGON-HF provide sufficient evidence to support any indication for the drug in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)? The committee did not reach a consensus on what that indication should be.

Before I list five reasons why I hope the FDA does not approve the drug for any indication in patients with HFpEF, let’s review the seminal trial.
 

PARAGON-HF

PARAGON-HF randomly assigned slightly more than 4,800 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan alone. The primary endpoint was total hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) and death because of cardiovascular (CV) events.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rate of the primary endpoint by 13% (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.01; P = .06). There were 894 primary endpoint events in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, compared with 1,009 events in the valsartan arm.

The lower rate of events in the sacubitril/valsartan arm was driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure. CV death was essentially the same in both arms (204 deaths in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus 212 deaths in the valsartan group).

A note on the patients: the investigators screened more than 10,000 patients and enrolled less than half of them. The mean age was 73 years; 52% of patients were women, but only 2% were Black. The mean LVEF was 57%; 95% of patients had hypertension and were receiving diuretics at baseline.

Now to the five reasons not to approve the drug for this indication.
 

1. Uncertainty of benefit in HFpEF

A P value for the primary endpoint greater than the threshold of .05 suggests some degree of uncertainty. A nice way of describing this uncertainty is with a Bayesian analysis. Whereas a P value tells you the chance of seeing these results if the drug has no benefit, the Bayesian approach tells you the chance of drug benefit given the trial results.

By email, James Brophy, MD, a senior scientist in the Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation at McGill University, Montreal, showed me a Bayesian calculation of PARAGON-HF. He estimated a 38% chance that sacubitril/valsartan had a clinically meaningful 15% reduction in the primary endpoint, a 3% chance that it worsens outcomes, and a 58% chance that it is essentially no better than valsartan.

The take-home is that, in PARAGON-HF, a best-case scenario involving select high-risk patients with run-in periods and trial-level follow-up, there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the drug is any better than a generic standard.
 

2. Modest effect size in PARAGON-HF

Let’s assume the benefit seen in PARAGON-HF is not caused by chance. Was the effect clinically significant?

For context, consider the large effect size that sacubitril/valsartan had versus enalapril for patients with HFrEF.

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 20% reduction in the composite primary endpoint. Importantly, this included equal reductions in both HHF and CV death. All-cause death was also significantly reduced in the active arm.

Because patients with HFpEF have a similarly poor prognosis as those with HFrEF, a truly beneficial drug should reduce not only HHF but also CV death and overall death. The lack of effect on these “harder” endpoints in PARAGON-HF points to a far more modest effect size for sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF.

What’s more, even the signal of reduced HHF in PARAGON-HF is tenuous. The PARAGON-HF authors chose total HHF, whereas previous trials in patients with HFpEF used first HHF as their primary endpoint. Had PARAGON-HF followed the methods of prior trials, first HHF would not have made statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04)
 

3. Subgroups not compelling

Proponents highlight the possibility that sacubitril/valsartan exerted a heterogenous effect in two subgroups.

In women, sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90), whereas men showed no significant difference (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.25). And the drug seemed to have little benefit over valsartan in patients with a median LVEF greater than 57%.

The problem with subgroups is that, if you look at enough of them, some can be positive on the basis of chance alone. For instance, patients enrolled in western Europe had an outsized benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients from other areas.

FDA reviewers noted: “It is possible that the heterogeneity of treatment effect observed in the subgroups by gender and LVEF in PARAGON-HF is a chance finding.”

By email, clinical trial expert Sanjay Kaul, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, expressed serious concern with the subgroup analyses in PARAGON-HF because the sex interaction was confined to HHF alone. There was no interaction for other outcomes, such as CV death, all-cause mortality, renal endpoints, blood pressure, or lowering of N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Similarly, the interaction with ejection fraction was confined to total HHF; it was not seen with New York Heart Association class improvement, all-cause mortality, quality of life, renal endpoints, or time to first event.

Dr. Kaul also emphasized something cardiologists know well, “that ejection fraction is not a static variable and is expected to change during the course of the trial.” This point makes it hard to believe that a partially subjective measurement, such as LVEF, could be a precise modifier of benefit.
 

4. Approval would stop research

If the FDA approves sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HFpEF, there is a near-zero chance we will learn whether there are subsets of patients who benefit more or less from the drug.

It will be the defibrillator problem all over again. Namely, while the average effect of a defibrillator is to reduce mortality in patients with HFrEF, in approximately 9 of 10 patients the implanted device is never used. Efforts to find subgroups that are most likely to need (or not need) an implantable defibrillator have been impossible because industry has no incentive to fund trials that may narrow the number of patients who qualify for their product.

It will be the same with sacubitril/valsartan. This is not nefarious; it is merely a limitation of industry funding of trials.
 

5. Opportunity costs

The category of HFpEF is vast.

FDA approval – even for a subset of these patients – would have huge cost implications. I understand cost issues are considered outside the purview of the FDA, but health care spending isn’t infinite. Money spent covering this costly drug is money not available for other things.

Despite this nation’s wealth, we struggle to provide even basic care to large numbers of people. Approval of an expensive drug with no or modest benefit will only exacerbate these stark disparities.
 

Conclusion

Given our current system of health care delivery, my pragmatic answer is for the FDA to say no to sacubitril/valsartan for HFpEF.

If you believe the drug has outsized benefits in women or those with mild impairment of systolic function, the way to answer these questions is not with subgroup analyses from a trial that did not reach statistical significance in its primary endpoint, but with more randomized trials. Isn’t that what “exploratory” subgroups are for?

Holding off on an indication for HFpEF will force proponents to define a subset of patients who garner a clear and substantial benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

The incidence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) – characterized by increased cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure – is rising considerably, corresponding to population increases in body mass index (BMI), a new study has shown. “The condition is associated with a high rate of health care utilization, so the increasing incidence has important implications for health care professionals and policy makers in addressing the associated comorbidities,” said senior author William Owen Pickrell, PhD, Swansea University (Wales).

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.

IIH is a condition of unknown etiology that is strongly associated with obesity, the researchers noted. Predominantly affecting women of childbearing age, it causes chronic disabling headaches, visual disturbance, and in a minority of patients, permanent visual loss. The definitive management is weight loss, but a minority of patients require surgery to preserve vision.

People with IIH potentially have high rates of health care utilization, multiple specialist consultations, diagnostic tests, CSF diversion procedures, and complications related to CSF diversion surgery.  
 

Population study in Wales

Given that there is a paucity of data regarding the epidemiology, health care utilization, and outcomes of people with IIH, Dr. Pickrell and colleagues conducted the current retrospective cohort study, which aimed to determine the temporal trends of IIH incidence and prevalence in Wales and health care utilization associated with IIH. They also investigated the effects of socioeconomic deprivation and obesity on IIH epidemiology.

For the study, they used and validated primary and secondary care IIH diagnostic codes within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage data bank, which is part of the national e-health records research infrastructure for Wales, to ascertain IIH cases and controls between 2003 and 2017. In total, 35 million patient-years of data were analyzed. Information was recorded on body mass index, deprivation quintile, CSF diversion surgery, and unscheduled hospital admissions in case and control cohorts.

“This is the first time the diagnostic codes for this condition have been validated. This is important as it is critical if we are studying a condition to know that the individuals we are studying actually have that condition,” Dr. Pickrell commented. “We were able to establish that the diagnostic codes were 92% sensitive and 87% specific – that’s pretty good.”

Results showed a significant increase in IIH incidence and prevalence in Wales. The prevalence of IIH in Wales increased sixfold from 12/100,000 in 2003 to 76/100,000 in 2017, and the incidence of IIH increased threefold from 2.3/100,000 per year in 2003 to 7.8/100,000 per year in 2017. This corresponded with increases in obesity rates: 29% of the population was obese in 2003, compared with 40% in 2017.
 

Reasons for the increase

“The considerable increase in IIH incidence is multifactorial but likely predominately due to rising obesity rates,” the authors noted. “The worldwide prevalence of obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016 and therefore these results also have global relevance.”

The increase in IIH incidence may also be attributable to increased IIH diagnosis rates because of raised awareness of the condition and greater use of digital fundoscopy at routine optometry appointments, they suggested.

“We found a strong association between increasing BMI, sex (being female), and IIH. Around 85% of our IIH cohort were female, similar to other studies, and we also found a significant association with increased deprivation and IIH, particularly in women,” the authors reported.

IIH is associated with increasing deprivation in women even after adjusting for obesity suggesting additional etiologic factors associated with deprivation apart from BMI; this effect was not seen in men, pointing to sex-specific drivers for IIH, they added.

The results also show that individuals with IIH have increased rates of unscheduled health care utilization compared with a matched-control cohort. The rate ratio for unscheduled hospital admissions in the IIH cohort, compared with controls was 5.28.

“A considerable proportion of this excess in unscheduled hospital admissions occurs at the time of diagnosis and can be explained by the need for urgent investigation of papilloedema with brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis. However, there is also a considerable excess in unscheduled hospital admissions up to 2 years after diagnosis,” the authors reported.

They suggested that these admissions are likely to be for severe headache, and they say there is some scope to reduce emergency admissions through better management of headache, patient education, and rapid access to outpatient specialist advice.

They also pointed out that the rate of unscheduled admissions is higher in the IIH cohort in the 3 years leading up to diagnosis, suggesting an opportunity for earlier diagnosis and earlier intervention.

In their study population, 8% of patients with IIH received CSF diversion procedures a mean of 1.3 years after diagnosis, and these patients showed significantly increased unscheduled health care admission rates, compared with IIH patients who had not undergone such procedures.

“There are frequent complications with the shunts after surgery, which causes a high revision rate,” Dr. Pickrell commented. In this study, 40% of patients undergoing CSF diversion needed at least one CSF shunt revision procedure.

The study was supported by the Brain Repair and Intracranial Neurotherapeutics unit, Wales Gene Park, Health Data Research UK, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Wales), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) – characterized by increased cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure – is rising considerably, corresponding to population increases in body mass index (BMI), a new study has shown. “The condition is associated with a high rate of health care utilization, so the increasing incidence has important implications for health care professionals and policy makers in addressing the associated comorbidities,” said senior author William Owen Pickrell, PhD, Swansea University (Wales).

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.

IIH is a condition of unknown etiology that is strongly associated with obesity, the researchers noted. Predominantly affecting women of childbearing age, it causes chronic disabling headaches, visual disturbance, and in a minority of patients, permanent visual loss. The definitive management is weight loss, but a minority of patients require surgery to preserve vision.

People with IIH potentially have high rates of health care utilization, multiple specialist consultations, diagnostic tests, CSF diversion procedures, and complications related to CSF diversion surgery.  
 

Population study in Wales

Given that there is a paucity of data regarding the epidemiology, health care utilization, and outcomes of people with IIH, Dr. Pickrell and colleagues conducted the current retrospective cohort study, which aimed to determine the temporal trends of IIH incidence and prevalence in Wales and health care utilization associated with IIH. They also investigated the effects of socioeconomic deprivation and obesity on IIH epidemiology.

For the study, they used and validated primary and secondary care IIH diagnostic codes within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage data bank, which is part of the national e-health records research infrastructure for Wales, to ascertain IIH cases and controls between 2003 and 2017. In total, 35 million patient-years of data were analyzed. Information was recorded on body mass index, deprivation quintile, CSF diversion surgery, and unscheduled hospital admissions in case and control cohorts.

“This is the first time the diagnostic codes for this condition have been validated. This is important as it is critical if we are studying a condition to know that the individuals we are studying actually have that condition,” Dr. Pickrell commented. “We were able to establish that the diagnostic codes were 92% sensitive and 87% specific – that’s pretty good.”

Results showed a significant increase in IIH incidence and prevalence in Wales. The prevalence of IIH in Wales increased sixfold from 12/100,000 in 2003 to 76/100,000 in 2017, and the incidence of IIH increased threefold from 2.3/100,000 per year in 2003 to 7.8/100,000 per year in 2017. This corresponded with increases in obesity rates: 29% of the population was obese in 2003, compared with 40% in 2017.
 

Reasons for the increase

“The considerable increase in IIH incidence is multifactorial but likely predominately due to rising obesity rates,” the authors noted. “The worldwide prevalence of obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016 and therefore these results also have global relevance.”

The increase in IIH incidence may also be attributable to increased IIH diagnosis rates because of raised awareness of the condition and greater use of digital fundoscopy at routine optometry appointments, they suggested.

“We found a strong association between increasing BMI, sex (being female), and IIH. Around 85% of our IIH cohort were female, similar to other studies, and we also found a significant association with increased deprivation and IIH, particularly in women,” the authors reported.

IIH is associated with increasing deprivation in women even after adjusting for obesity suggesting additional etiologic factors associated with deprivation apart from BMI; this effect was not seen in men, pointing to sex-specific drivers for IIH, they added.

The results also show that individuals with IIH have increased rates of unscheduled health care utilization compared with a matched-control cohort. The rate ratio for unscheduled hospital admissions in the IIH cohort, compared with controls was 5.28.

“A considerable proportion of this excess in unscheduled hospital admissions occurs at the time of diagnosis and can be explained by the need for urgent investigation of papilloedema with brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis. However, there is also a considerable excess in unscheduled hospital admissions up to 2 years after diagnosis,” the authors reported.

They suggested that these admissions are likely to be for severe headache, and they say there is some scope to reduce emergency admissions through better management of headache, patient education, and rapid access to outpatient specialist advice.

They also pointed out that the rate of unscheduled admissions is higher in the IIH cohort in the 3 years leading up to diagnosis, suggesting an opportunity for earlier diagnosis and earlier intervention.

In their study population, 8% of patients with IIH received CSF diversion procedures a mean of 1.3 years after diagnosis, and these patients showed significantly increased unscheduled health care admission rates, compared with IIH patients who had not undergone such procedures.

“There are frequent complications with the shunts after surgery, which causes a high revision rate,” Dr. Pickrell commented. In this study, 40% of patients undergoing CSF diversion needed at least one CSF shunt revision procedure.

The study was supported by the Brain Repair and Intracranial Neurotherapeutics unit, Wales Gene Park, Health Data Research UK, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Wales), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) – characterized by increased cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure – is rising considerably, corresponding to population increases in body mass index (BMI), a new study has shown. “The condition is associated with a high rate of health care utilization, so the increasing incidence has important implications for health care professionals and policy makers in addressing the associated comorbidities,” said senior author William Owen Pickrell, PhD, Swansea University (Wales).

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.

IIH is a condition of unknown etiology that is strongly associated with obesity, the researchers noted. Predominantly affecting women of childbearing age, it causes chronic disabling headaches, visual disturbance, and in a minority of patients, permanent visual loss. The definitive management is weight loss, but a minority of patients require surgery to preserve vision.

People with IIH potentially have high rates of health care utilization, multiple specialist consultations, diagnostic tests, CSF diversion procedures, and complications related to CSF diversion surgery.  
 

Population study in Wales

Given that there is a paucity of data regarding the epidemiology, health care utilization, and outcomes of people with IIH, Dr. Pickrell and colleagues conducted the current retrospective cohort study, which aimed to determine the temporal trends of IIH incidence and prevalence in Wales and health care utilization associated with IIH. They also investigated the effects of socioeconomic deprivation and obesity on IIH epidemiology.

For the study, they used and validated primary and secondary care IIH diagnostic codes within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage data bank, which is part of the national e-health records research infrastructure for Wales, to ascertain IIH cases and controls between 2003 and 2017. In total, 35 million patient-years of data were analyzed. Information was recorded on body mass index, deprivation quintile, CSF diversion surgery, and unscheduled hospital admissions in case and control cohorts.

“This is the first time the diagnostic codes for this condition have been validated. This is important as it is critical if we are studying a condition to know that the individuals we are studying actually have that condition,” Dr. Pickrell commented. “We were able to establish that the diagnostic codes were 92% sensitive and 87% specific – that’s pretty good.”

Results showed a significant increase in IIH incidence and prevalence in Wales. The prevalence of IIH in Wales increased sixfold from 12/100,000 in 2003 to 76/100,000 in 2017, and the incidence of IIH increased threefold from 2.3/100,000 per year in 2003 to 7.8/100,000 per year in 2017. This corresponded with increases in obesity rates: 29% of the population was obese in 2003, compared with 40% in 2017.
 

Reasons for the increase

“The considerable increase in IIH incidence is multifactorial but likely predominately due to rising obesity rates,” the authors noted. “The worldwide prevalence of obesity nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016 and therefore these results also have global relevance.”

The increase in IIH incidence may also be attributable to increased IIH diagnosis rates because of raised awareness of the condition and greater use of digital fundoscopy at routine optometry appointments, they suggested.

“We found a strong association between increasing BMI, sex (being female), and IIH. Around 85% of our IIH cohort were female, similar to other studies, and we also found a significant association with increased deprivation and IIH, particularly in women,” the authors reported.

IIH is associated with increasing deprivation in women even after adjusting for obesity suggesting additional etiologic factors associated with deprivation apart from BMI; this effect was not seen in men, pointing to sex-specific drivers for IIH, they added.

The results also show that individuals with IIH have increased rates of unscheduled health care utilization compared with a matched-control cohort. The rate ratio for unscheduled hospital admissions in the IIH cohort, compared with controls was 5.28.

“A considerable proportion of this excess in unscheduled hospital admissions occurs at the time of diagnosis and can be explained by the need for urgent investigation of papilloedema with brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis. However, there is also a considerable excess in unscheduled hospital admissions up to 2 years after diagnosis,” the authors reported.

They suggested that these admissions are likely to be for severe headache, and they say there is some scope to reduce emergency admissions through better management of headache, patient education, and rapid access to outpatient specialist advice.

They also pointed out that the rate of unscheduled admissions is higher in the IIH cohort in the 3 years leading up to diagnosis, suggesting an opportunity for earlier diagnosis and earlier intervention.

In their study population, 8% of patients with IIH received CSF diversion procedures a mean of 1.3 years after diagnosis, and these patients showed significantly increased unscheduled health care admission rates, compared with IIH patients who had not undergone such procedures.

“There are frequent complications with the shunts after surgery, which causes a high revision rate,” Dr. Pickrell commented. In this study, 40% of patients undergoing CSF diversion needed at least one CSF shunt revision procedure.

The study was supported by the Brain Repair and Intracranial Neurotherapeutics unit, Wales Gene Park, Health Data Research UK, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Wales), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although not correlated with each other, increased levels of circulating neprilysin and corin concentrations correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, according to prospective analysis involving 1,009 HF patients.

This implies that these enzymes might have value for individualizing care, including treatment of patients in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reported a team of investigators led by D.H. Frank Gommans, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

When followed for up to 7 years and after adjustment for differences in sex and age, the highest risk for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization was observed in those with both high soluble neprilysin (sNEP) and high soluble corin (sCOR). The lowest risk was observed in the group with low levels of both enzymes.

The data suggest that monitoring these enzymes might provide “a step toward individualized CHF patient management,” Dr. Gommans reported in JACC Heart Failure, the adjusted hazard ratio for elevated sNEP and sCOR translated into a greater than 50% increase in the composite primary endpoint relative to low levels of both (HR, 1.56; P = .003). After a “comprehensive multivariable analysis,” the increased risk remained substantial and significant (HR, 1.41; P = .03).

In the natriuretic peptide pathway, which has long been recognized as a mediator of vasodilation, venous compliance, diuresis, and other processes dysregulated in heart failure, NEP and COR are “key mediators,” according to the investigators, who cited previously published studies. More attention has turned to these enzymes as potential biomarkers in the context of the PARADIGM trial, which associated an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a survival benefit in CHF.

The observational study consisted of CHF patients attending a heart failure clinic and who were ARNI naive at inclusion. On the basis of circulating enzyme measurements undertaken from blood samples employing standard techniques, they were stratified into four groups. Those with low levels of both enzymes served as the reference. They were compared with those with low sNEP and high sCOR, those with high sNEP and low sCOR, and those with high levels of both enzymes.

Over the course of a median 4.5 years of follow-up, there were 511 deaths, of which 54% were from a CV cause. There were also 331 heart failure hospitalizations. In all, 449 patients reached the primary composite endpoint.

When compared with the group with low sNEP and low sCOR, an elevation in either enzyme was associated with a numerically but not significantly greater hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint. The lack of correlation in the elevation of these two enzymes suggests each provides different prognostic information, although it appears that both must be considered together to predict outcomes.

Clinically, stratification of these enzymes might be most useful in HFpEF patients. Relative to the separation of event curves in the CHF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the divergence in the event curves for HFpEF were greater. In addition, event curves separated from the reference in HFpEF patients but not the HFrEF patients if either enzyme was elevated.

Asked if these data hold particular promise for monitoring and individualizing therapy in HFpEF patients, Dr. Gommans said yes. Although he cautioned that this was an observational study and that the differences between the HFpEF and HFrEF should be considered exploratory, he agreed that components of the natriuretic peptide pathway have particular potential to provide new prognostic information and individualize care in HFpEF, where therapeutic options remain limited.

Stratification of natriuretic peptide enzymes in this group might “present as an interesting alternative to ejection fraction” for prognosis and the consideration of treatment choices, he suggested.

Although further validation of the prognostic importance of sNEP and sCOR is needed, according to Dr. Gommans, he foresees the potential of therapeutic trials based on elevated levels of these enzymes. For example, he speculated that these levels might distinguish HFpEF patients who could benefit from a first-line ARNI.

In an accompanying editorial, significant doubts were expressed about simple measurements of sNEP and sCOR concentrations to predict clinical course or guide treatment decisions. The authors of the editorial agreed this is an important area of study but warned of its complexity.

“Concentrations of circulating neprilysin have been shown to correlate poorly with neprilysin activity. Thus the rate of natriuretic peptide degradation by neprilysin cannot be determined solely by measuring circulating levels,” cautioned Peder L. Myhre, MD, PhD, who is a cardiology fellow at Akershus University Hospital in Nordbyhagen, Norway, and postdoc researcher at the University of Oslo.

“Accordingly, concentrations of neprilysin and corin cannot alone be used to predict response to therapies interacting with these peptides,” he added. He agreed that neprilysin and corin might be appropriate biomarkers in CHF, but he thinks the focus must be on their enzymatic activity, not their circulating levels.

“Measuring the enzymatic activity may be a feasible strategy, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

Dr. Gommans reported a financial relationship with Novartis. Dr. Myhre reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

Although not correlated with each other, increased levels of circulating neprilysin and corin concentrations correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, according to prospective analysis involving 1,009 HF patients.

This implies that these enzymes might have value for individualizing care, including treatment of patients in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reported a team of investigators led by D.H. Frank Gommans, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

When followed for up to 7 years and after adjustment for differences in sex and age, the highest risk for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization was observed in those with both high soluble neprilysin (sNEP) and high soluble corin (sCOR). The lowest risk was observed in the group with low levels of both enzymes.

The data suggest that monitoring these enzymes might provide “a step toward individualized CHF patient management,” Dr. Gommans reported in JACC Heart Failure, the adjusted hazard ratio for elevated sNEP and sCOR translated into a greater than 50% increase in the composite primary endpoint relative to low levels of both (HR, 1.56; P = .003). After a “comprehensive multivariable analysis,” the increased risk remained substantial and significant (HR, 1.41; P = .03).

In the natriuretic peptide pathway, which has long been recognized as a mediator of vasodilation, venous compliance, diuresis, and other processes dysregulated in heart failure, NEP and COR are “key mediators,” according to the investigators, who cited previously published studies. More attention has turned to these enzymes as potential biomarkers in the context of the PARADIGM trial, which associated an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a survival benefit in CHF.

The observational study consisted of CHF patients attending a heart failure clinic and who were ARNI naive at inclusion. On the basis of circulating enzyme measurements undertaken from blood samples employing standard techniques, they were stratified into four groups. Those with low levels of both enzymes served as the reference. They were compared with those with low sNEP and high sCOR, those with high sNEP and low sCOR, and those with high levels of both enzymes.

Over the course of a median 4.5 years of follow-up, there were 511 deaths, of which 54% were from a CV cause. There were also 331 heart failure hospitalizations. In all, 449 patients reached the primary composite endpoint.

When compared with the group with low sNEP and low sCOR, an elevation in either enzyme was associated with a numerically but not significantly greater hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint. The lack of correlation in the elevation of these two enzymes suggests each provides different prognostic information, although it appears that both must be considered together to predict outcomes.

Clinically, stratification of these enzymes might be most useful in HFpEF patients. Relative to the separation of event curves in the CHF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the divergence in the event curves for HFpEF were greater. In addition, event curves separated from the reference in HFpEF patients but not the HFrEF patients if either enzyme was elevated.

Asked if these data hold particular promise for monitoring and individualizing therapy in HFpEF patients, Dr. Gommans said yes. Although he cautioned that this was an observational study and that the differences between the HFpEF and HFrEF should be considered exploratory, he agreed that components of the natriuretic peptide pathway have particular potential to provide new prognostic information and individualize care in HFpEF, where therapeutic options remain limited.

Stratification of natriuretic peptide enzymes in this group might “present as an interesting alternative to ejection fraction” for prognosis and the consideration of treatment choices, he suggested.

Although further validation of the prognostic importance of sNEP and sCOR is needed, according to Dr. Gommans, he foresees the potential of therapeutic trials based on elevated levels of these enzymes. For example, he speculated that these levels might distinguish HFpEF patients who could benefit from a first-line ARNI.

In an accompanying editorial, significant doubts were expressed about simple measurements of sNEP and sCOR concentrations to predict clinical course or guide treatment decisions. The authors of the editorial agreed this is an important area of study but warned of its complexity.

“Concentrations of circulating neprilysin have been shown to correlate poorly with neprilysin activity. Thus the rate of natriuretic peptide degradation by neprilysin cannot be determined solely by measuring circulating levels,” cautioned Peder L. Myhre, MD, PhD, who is a cardiology fellow at Akershus University Hospital in Nordbyhagen, Norway, and postdoc researcher at the University of Oslo.

“Accordingly, concentrations of neprilysin and corin cannot alone be used to predict response to therapies interacting with these peptides,” he added. He agreed that neprilysin and corin might be appropriate biomarkers in CHF, but he thinks the focus must be on their enzymatic activity, not their circulating levels.

“Measuring the enzymatic activity may be a feasible strategy, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

Dr. Gommans reported a financial relationship with Novartis. Dr. Myhre reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

Although not correlated with each other, increased levels of circulating neprilysin and corin concentrations correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, according to prospective analysis involving 1,009 HF patients.

This implies that these enzymes might have value for individualizing care, including treatment of patients in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reported a team of investigators led by D.H. Frank Gommans, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

When followed for up to 7 years and after adjustment for differences in sex and age, the highest risk for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization was observed in those with both high soluble neprilysin (sNEP) and high soluble corin (sCOR). The lowest risk was observed in the group with low levels of both enzymes.

The data suggest that monitoring these enzymes might provide “a step toward individualized CHF patient management,” Dr. Gommans reported in JACC Heart Failure, the adjusted hazard ratio for elevated sNEP and sCOR translated into a greater than 50% increase in the composite primary endpoint relative to low levels of both (HR, 1.56; P = .003). After a “comprehensive multivariable analysis,” the increased risk remained substantial and significant (HR, 1.41; P = .03).

In the natriuretic peptide pathway, which has long been recognized as a mediator of vasodilation, venous compliance, diuresis, and other processes dysregulated in heart failure, NEP and COR are “key mediators,” according to the investigators, who cited previously published studies. More attention has turned to these enzymes as potential biomarkers in the context of the PARADIGM trial, which associated an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a survival benefit in CHF.

The observational study consisted of CHF patients attending a heart failure clinic and who were ARNI naive at inclusion. On the basis of circulating enzyme measurements undertaken from blood samples employing standard techniques, they were stratified into four groups. Those with low levels of both enzymes served as the reference. They were compared with those with low sNEP and high sCOR, those with high sNEP and low sCOR, and those with high levels of both enzymes.

Over the course of a median 4.5 years of follow-up, there were 511 deaths, of which 54% were from a CV cause. There were also 331 heart failure hospitalizations. In all, 449 patients reached the primary composite endpoint.

When compared with the group with low sNEP and low sCOR, an elevation in either enzyme was associated with a numerically but not significantly greater hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint. The lack of correlation in the elevation of these two enzymes suggests each provides different prognostic information, although it appears that both must be considered together to predict outcomes.

Clinically, stratification of these enzymes might be most useful in HFpEF patients. Relative to the separation of event curves in the CHF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the divergence in the event curves for HFpEF were greater. In addition, event curves separated from the reference in HFpEF patients but not the HFrEF patients if either enzyme was elevated.

Asked if these data hold particular promise for monitoring and individualizing therapy in HFpEF patients, Dr. Gommans said yes. Although he cautioned that this was an observational study and that the differences between the HFpEF and HFrEF should be considered exploratory, he agreed that components of the natriuretic peptide pathway have particular potential to provide new prognostic information and individualize care in HFpEF, where therapeutic options remain limited.

Stratification of natriuretic peptide enzymes in this group might “present as an interesting alternative to ejection fraction” for prognosis and the consideration of treatment choices, he suggested.

Although further validation of the prognostic importance of sNEP and sCOR is needed, according to Dr. Gommans, he foresees the potential of therapeutic trials based on elevated levels of these enzymes. For example, he speculated that these levels might distinguish HFpEF patients who could benefit from a first-line ARNI.

In an accompanying editorial, significant doubts were expressed about simple measurements of sNEP and sCOR concentrations to predict clinical course or guide treatment decisions. The authors of the editorial agreed this is an important area of study but warned of its complexity.

“Concentrations of circulating neprilysin have been shown to correlate poorly with neprilysin activity. Thus the rate of natriuretic peptide degradation by neprilysin cannot be determined solely by measuring circulating levels,” cautioned Peder L. Myhre, MD, PhD, who is a cardiology fellow at Akershus University Hospital in Nordbyhagen, Norway, and postdoc researcher at the University of Oslo.

“Accordingly, concentrations of neprilysin and corin cannot alone be used to predict response to therapies interacting with these peptides,” he added. He agreed that neprilysin and corin might be appropriate biomarkers in CHF, but he thinks the focus must be on their enzymatic activity, not their circulating levels.

“Measuring the enzymatic activity may be a feasible strategy, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

Dr. Gommans reported a financial relationship with Novartis. Dr. Myhre reported financial relationships with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

Physician offices, which have been deemphasized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, should have a more prominent role in the effort going forward, said the Medical Group Management Association in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Jan. 26.

“Due to our members’ role as community providers, we ask that the Administration include medical group practices in COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies moving forward,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, stated in the letter.

“Current vaccine efforts are haphazard at best and appear to rely on a passive first come first served approach with the public rushing to sign up for vaccines when scant supply becomes available,” MGMA noted. “This favors patients who can advocate for themselves or have family members able to do the same. Yet medical group practices already have patient relationships and experience vaccinating patients for influenza and other conditions.”

Moreover, physician practices have data on patient demographics, preexisting conditions, and risk factors. This is valuable information not available to hospitals, pharmacies, and state health departments, MGMA said.

“Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty and misinformation, patients are looking to their own physicians as a trusted source for information on vaccine safety and efficacy,” the letter stated. “Physician group practices can and should play a significant role in vaccine education.”

Despite these advantages of vaccinating patients in doctors’ offices, MGMA pointed out that “states have largely not leveraged physician practices in vaccine rollout efforts.”

In an MGMA survey conducted last week, 85% of independent practices and 45% of hospital- or health system–owned practices that sought COVID-19 vaccine for their patients were unable to obtain any. Of the practices able to get vaccine supplies, the majority said they had received only enough to vaccinate 1% or less of their patients.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association commented in an interview that, “once enough supplies are available, we encourage the administration to ensure physician practices have an adequate supply of COVID-19 vaccines to vaccinate their patients. Physician practices will be an integral part of the vaccine administration process. Physicians are a trusted source of information for patients and their direct conversations and recommendations for patients to get vaccinated will help address hesitancy and result in more people getting vaccinated.”

Many groups, MGMA said, had been approved by their states to distribute the vaccine but received little or no inventory. Practice phone lines have been “flooded” by patients wanting to know why their physicians can’t vaccinate them.
 

Programs vary by state

In an interview, Dr. Fischer-Wright said that most practices want to vaccinate their patients. But only some states have set up programs that allow them to apply for the COVID-19 vaccines. “Most of our practices that were eligible for vaccination have applied for it,” she added.

The New York State Health Department is taking a different approach, according to Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services with the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, N.Y.. The state health department has designated specific sites across New York as vaccination hubs; in Westchester County, the hub is the Westchester Medical Center. When the hospital receives a vaccine shipment, it distributes some of it to smaller sites such as the county health department, which includes a vaccination clinic.

“So far, they haven’t gotten to the point where they’re distributing to pharmacies or doctors’ offices,” Dr. Hewlett said in an interview.

Right now, he said, the chief limiting factor is vaccine supply. When that expands, he said, physician offices will likely get more vaccine doses.

Both Dr. Hewlett and Dr. Fischer-Wright pointed out that physician offices are limited because they aren’t able to store the Pfizer vaccine, which requires ultracold freezers. “But now that we have the Moderna vaccine, 50% of the 200 million doses that have been promised can be delivered in a physician office,” said Dr. Fischer-Wright.

So why haven’t practices received more vaccine? Besides the inadequate supply across the nation, Dr. Fischer-Wright said, there have been difficulties in getting the vaccine to physician offices. Some MGMA members, she added, did receive vaccine supplies immediately. “These were independent practices that had over 200 physicians.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that some smaller practices have complained to the county department that they couldn’t obtain vaccine because they lacked the clout to compete with larger groups. “They’re not ordering enough product to make it a priority for whoever is involved with the distribution.”

Another problem – evident in the results of MGMA’s recent poll – is that health care systems that have vaccine supplies are sharing them with their own practices before they make any available to community practices.

“If you’re working for Northwell Health, you probably won’t have the kinds of challenges that the small mom-and-pop practice would have,” Dr. Hewlett said.
 

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy

More than a quarter of the U.S. population has indicated they are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This is an area where Dr. Fischer-Wright believes physicians can help immensely.

“The benefit of having that type of activity occur in the physician office is that it’s a place where physicians have already established trust with patients,” she said. “And one of the reasons why some people don’t want a shot is that they don’t trust the vaccine. Having a human being that you have a relationship with provide you with the pros and cons is very compelling to get people to make an alternative choice.”

Physicians and their staff will also need to be educated before they administer the vaccine, Dr. Hewlett noted. “There will have to be education on the handling of the vaccine, but I think that can easily be done. Many practices have physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have been doing a lot of vaccinations in the office setting.”
 

Complex logistics

Based on the experience of his department’s vaccination clinic, which has been giving COVID-19 shots since Jan. 5, Dr. Hewlett said private practices have a lot to consider before they launch their own vaccination efforts.

To begin with, he said, “it’s a tricky situation with these vaccines that require two doses.” Before his clinic makes an appointment to vaccinate a patient, the scheduler has to make sure that the patient can return in 21 or 28 days, depending on whether they’re getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

“It’s difficult if they can’t show up 28 days after that date because we expect the same number of people to show up 28 days later for their second dose,” he said. “This is quite different from a standard medical practice. There aren’t too many situations where a person has to come back to the office after 28 days or 21 days.”

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the immunization schedule can be more flexible, Dr. Hewlett added, his clinic prefers to get patients back on the recommended schedule to make sure the vaccine will be maximally effective.

The clinic also has to follow state regulations requiring that all vaccines it receives be administered within a week of receipt. Right now, the clinic is open 6 days a week, giving about 300-400 shots a day. Each morning, a clerk records how many doses were administered the previous day, along with the lot numbers – and all data must be reported to the state.

The operation is fairly labor intensive. The clinic has a staff of about 30 people, most of whom are now engaged full time in the COVID-19 vaccination effort.

“We have people who check patients in and who screen to make sure no one has COVID symptoms. Other people escort patients to the vaccination stations. We have about 15 nurse practitioners and public health nurses who give the shots, and we have to make sure they’re accounting for every dose that’s given. And we have to make sure everybody getting a dose meets the eligibility criteria for shots,” he said. “We also have an area where patients are watched for 15 minutes after they’re vaccinated. Then there’s a group of five data entry people who locate appointment slots 28 days from today.”

It’s all still “a work in progress,” Dr. Hewlett said, but the staff who give COVID-19 shots and the patients who receive them are gratified to be making a difference.

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

Physician offices, which have been deemphasized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, should have a more prominent role in the effort going forward, said the Medical Group Management Association in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Jan. 26.

“Due to our members’ role as community providers, we ask that the Administration include medical group practices in COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies moving forward,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, stated in the letter.

“Current vaccine efforts are haphazard at best and appear to rely on a passive first come first served approach with the public rushing to sign up for vaccines when scant supply becomes available,” MGMA noted. “This favors patients who can advocate for themselves or have family members able to do the same. Yet medical group practices already have patient relationships and experience vaccinating patients for influenza and other conditions.”

Moreover, physician practices have data on patient demographics, preexisting conditions, and risk factors. This is valuable information not available to hospitals, pharmacies, and state health departments, MGMA said.

“Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty and misinformation, patients are looking to their own physicians as a trusted source for information on vaccine safety and efficacy,” the letter stated. “Physician group practices can and should play a significant role in vaccine education.”

Despite these advantages of vaccinating patients in doctors’ offices, MGMA pointed out that “states have largely not leveraged physician practices in vaccine rollout efforts.”

In an MGMA survey conducted last week, 85% of independent practices and 45% of hospital- or health system–owned practices that sought COVID-19 vaccine for their patients were unable to obtain any. Of the practices able to get vaccine supplies, the majority said they had received only enough to vaccinate 1% or less of their patients.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association commented in an interview that, “once enough supplies are available, we encourage the administration to ensure physician practices have an adequate supply of COVID-19 vaccines to vaccinate their patients. Physician practices will be an integral part of the vaccine administration process. Physicians are a trusted source of information for patients and their direct conversations and recommendations for patients to get vaccinated will help address hesitancy and result in more people getting vaccinated.”

Many groups, MGMA said, had been approved by their states to distribute the vaccine but received little or no inventory. Practice phone lines have been “flooded” by patients wanting to know why their physicians can’t vaccinate them.
 

Programs vary by state

In an interview, Dr. Fischer-Wright said that most practices want to vaccinate their patients. But only some states have set up programs that allow them to apply for the COVID-19 vaccines. “Most of our practices that were eligible for vaccination have applied for it,” she added.

The New York State Health Department is taking a different approach, according to Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services with the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, N.Y.. The state health department has designated specific sites across New York as vaccination hubs; in Westchester County, the hub is the Westchester Medical Center. When the hospital receives a vaccine shipment, it distributes some of it to smaller sites such as the county health department, which includes a vaccination clinic.

“So far, they haven’t gotten to the point where they’re distributing to pharmacies or doctors’ offices,” Dr. Hewlett said in an interview.

Right now, he said, the chief limiting factor is vaccine supply. When that expands, he said, physician offices will likely get more vaccine doses.

Both Dr. Hewlett and Dr. Fischer-Wright pointed out that physician offices are limited because they aren’t able to store the Pfizer vaccine, which requires ultracold freezers. “But now that we have the Moderna vaccine, 50% of the 200 million doses that have been promised can be delivered in a physician office,” said Dr. Fischer-Wright.

So why haven’t practices received more vaccine? Besides the inadequate supply across the nation, Dr. Fischer-Wright said, there have been difficulties in getting the vaccine to physician offices. Some MGMA members, she added, did receive vaccine supplies immediately. “These were independent practices that had over 200 physicians.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that some smaller practices have complained to the county department that they couldn’t obtain vaccine because they lacked the clout to compete with larger groups. “They’re not ordering enough product to make it a priority for whoever is involved with the distribution.”

Another problem – evident in the results of MGMA’s recent poll – is that health care systems that have vaccine supplies are sharing them with their own practices before they make any available to community practices.

“If you’re working for Northwell Health, you probably won’t have the kinds of challenges that the small mom-and-pop practice would have,” Dr. Hewlett said.
 

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy

More than a quarter of the U.S. population has indicated they are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This is an area where Dr. Fischer-Wright believes physicians can help immensely.

“The benefit of having that type of activity occur in the physician office is that it’s a place where physicians have already established trust with patients,” she said. “And one of the reasons why some people don’t want a shot is that they don’t trust the vaccine. Having a human being that you have a relationship with provide you with the pros and cons is very compelling to get people to make an alternative choice.”

Physicians and their staff will also need to be educated before they administer the vaccine, Dr. Hewlett noted. “There will have to be education on the handling of the vaccine, but I think that can easily be done. Many practices have physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have been doing a lot of vaccinations in the office setting.”
 

Complex logistics

Based on the experience of his department’s vaccination clinic, which has been giving COVID-19 shots since Jan. 5, Dr. Hewlett said private practices have a lot to consider before they launch their own vaccination efforts.

To begin with, he said, “it’s a tricky situation with these vaccines that require two doses.” Before his clinic makes an appointment to vaccinate a patient, the scheduler has to make sure that the patient can return in 21 or 28 days, depending on whether they’re getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

“It’s difficult if they can’t show up 28 days after that date because we expect the same number of people to show up 28 days later for their second dose,” he said. “This is quite different from a standard medical practice. There aren’t too many situations where a person has to come back to the office after 28 days or 21 days.”

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the immunization schedule can be more flexible, Dr. Hewlett added, his clinic prefers to get patients back on the recommended schedule to make sure the vaccine will be maximally effective.

The clinic also has to follow state regulations requiring that all vaccines it receives be administered within a week of receipt. Right now, the clinic is open 6 days a week, giving about 300-400 shots a day. Each morning, a clerk records how many doses were administered the previous day, along with the lot numbers – and all data must be reported to the state.

The operation is fairly labor intensive. The clinic has a staff of about 30 people, most of whom are now engaged full time in the COVID-19 vaccination effort.

“We have people who check patients in and who screen to make sure no one has COVID symptoms. Other people escort patients to the vaccination stations. We have about 15 nurse practitioners and public health nurses who give the shots, and we have to make sure they’re accounting for every dose that’s given. And we have to make sure everybody getting a dose meets the eligibility criteria for shots,” he said. “We also have an area where patients are watched for 15 minutes after they’re vaccinated. Then there’s a group of five data entry people who locate appointment slots 28 days from today.”

It’s all still “a work in progress,” Dr. Hewlett said, but the staff who give COVID-19 shots and the patients who receive them are gratified to be making a difference.

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

Physician offices, which have been deemphasized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, should have a more prominent role in the effort going forward, said the Medical Group Management Association in a letter sent to President Joe Biden on Jan. 26.

“Due to our members’ role as community providers, we ask that the Administration include medical group practices in COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies moving forward,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, president and CEO of MGMA, stated in the letter.

“Current vaccine efforts are haphazard at best and appear to rely on a passive first come first served approach with the public rushing to sign up for vaccines when scant supply becomes available,” MGMA noted. “This favors patients who can advocate for themselves or have family members able to do the same. Yet medical group practices already have patient relationships and experience vaccinating patients for influenza and other conditions.”

Moreover, physician practices have data on patient demographics, preexisting conditions, and risk factors. This is valuable information not available to hospitals, pharmacies, and state health departments, MGMA said.

“Furthermore, in a time of uncertainty and misinformation, patients are looking to their own physicians as a trusted source for information on vaccine safety and efficacy,” the letter stated. “Physician group practices can and should play a significant role in vaccine education.”

Despite these advantages of vaccinating patients in doctors’ offices, MGMA pointed out that “states have largely not leveraged physician practices in vaccine rollout efforts.”

In an MGMA survey conducted last week, 85% of independent practices and 45% of hospital- or health system–owned practices that sought COVID-19 vaccine for their patients were unable to obtain any. Of the practices able to get vaccine supplies, the majority said they had received only enough to vaccinate 1% or less of their patients.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association commented in an interview that, “once enough supplies are available, we encourage the administration to ensure physician practices have an adequate supply of COVID-19 vaccines to vaccinate their patients. Physician practices will be an integral part of the vaccine administration process. Physicians are a trusted source of information for patients and their direct conversations and recommendations for patients to get vaccinated will help address hesitancy and result in more people getting vaccinated.”

Many groups, MGMA said, had been approved by their states to distribute the vaccine but received little or no inventory. Practice phone lines have been “flooded” by patients wanting to know why their physicians can’t vaccinate them.
 

Programs vary by state

In an interview, Dr. Fischer-Wright said that most practices want to vaccinate their patients. But only some states have set up programs that allow them to apply for the COVID-19 vaccines. “Most of our practices that were eligible for vaccination have applied for it,” she added.

The New York State Health Department is taking a different approach, according to Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services with the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, N.Y.. The state health department has designated specific sites across New York as vaccination hubs; in Westchester County, the hub is the Westchester Medical Center. When the hospital receives a vaccine shipment, it distributes some of it to smaller sites such as the county health department, which includes a vaccination clinic.

“So far, they haven’t gotten to the point where they’re distributing to pharmacies or doctors’ offices,” Dr. Hewlett said in an interview.

Right now, he said, the chief limiting factor is vaccine supply. When that expands, he said, physician offices will likely get more vaccine doses.

Both Dr. Hewlett and Dr. Fischer-Wright pointed out that physician offices are limited because they aren’t able to store the Pfizer vaccine, which requires ultracold freezers. “But now that we have the Moderna vaccine, 50% of the 200 million doses that have been promised can be delivered in a physician office,” said Dr. Fischer-Wright.

So why haven’t practices received more vaccine? Besides the inadequate supply across the nation, Dr. Fischer-Wright said, there have been difficulties in getting the vaccine to physician offices. Some MGMA members, she added, did receive vaccine supplies immediately. “These were independent practices that had over 200 physicians.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that some smaller practices have complained to the county department that they couldn’t obtain vaccine because they lacked the clout to compete with larger groups. “They’re not ordering enough product to make it a priority for whoever is involved with the distribution.”

Another problem – evident in the results of MGMA’s recent poll – is that health care systems that have vaccine supplies are sharing them with their own practices before they make any available to community practices.

“If you’re working for Northwell Health, you probably won’t have the kinds of challenges that the small mom-and-pop practice would have,” Dr. Hewlett said.
 

Overcoming vaccine hesitancy

More than a quarter of the U.S. population has indicated they are hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This is an area where Dr. Fischer-Wright believes physicians can help immensely.

“The benefit of having that type of activity occur in the physician office is that it’s a place where physicians have already established trust with patients,” she said. “And one of the reasons why some people don’t want a shot is that they don’t trust the vaccine. Having a human being that you have a relationship with provide you with the pros and cons is very compelling to get people to make an alternative choice.”

Physicians and their staff will also need to be educated before they administer the vaccine, Dr. Hewlett noted. “There will have to be education on the handling of the vaccine, but I think that can easily be done. Many practices have physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have been doing a lot of vaccinations in the office setting.”
 

Complex logistics

Based on the experience of his department’s vaccination clinic, which has been giving COVID-19 shots since Jan. 5, Dr. Hewlett said private practices have a lot to consider before they launch their own vaccination efforts.

To begin with, he said, “it’s a tricky situation with these vaccines that require two doses.” Before his clinic makes an appointment to vaccinate a patient, the scheduler has to make sure that the patient can return in 21 or 28 days, depending on whether they’re getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

“It’s difficult if they can’t show up 28 days after that date because we expect the same number of people to show up 28 days later for their second dose,” he said. “This is quite different from a standard medical practice. There aren’t too many situations where a person has to come back to the office after 28 days or 21 days.”

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently said the immunization schedule can be more flexible, Dr. Hewlett added, his clinic prefers to get patients back on the recommended schedule to make sure the vaccine will be maximally effective.

The clinic also has to follow state regulations requiring that all vaccines it receives be administered within a week of receipt. Right now, the clinic is open 6 days a week, giving about 300-400 shots a day. Each morning, a clerk records how many doses were administered the previous day, along with the lot numbers – and all data must be reported to the state.

The operation is fairly labor intensive. The clinic has a staff of about 30 people, most of whom are now engaged full time in the COVID-19 vaccination effort.

“We have people who check patients in and who screen to make sure no one has COVID symptoms. Other people escort patients to the vaccination stations. We have about 15 nurse practitioners and public health nurses who give the shots, and we have to make sure they’re accounting for every dose that’s given. And we have to make sure everybody getting a dose meets the eligibility criteria for shots,” he said. “We also have an area where patients are watched for 15 minutes after they’re vaccinated. Then there’s a group of five data entry people who locate appointment slots 28 days from today.”

It’s all still “a work in progress,” Dr. Hewlett said, but the staff who give COVID-19 shots and the patients who receive them are gratified to be making a difference.

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

Hospitalist Sarah Stone, MD, arrived for her day shift at Sharp Chula Vista one day in late December. The ICU and hospital wards were still overflowing with COVID-19 patients. But over the previous couple of months, she’d also seen more and more recovered patients presenting with a myriad of symptoms: pulmonary emboli, cardiomyopathy, a shocking case of aspergillosis, and those rare cases of “long COVID,” the patients who just can’t get better.

This morning it was a woman in her 30s. She felt fine, but 2 weeks after recovering from COVID-19, she had unexplained bruising on her arm, a petechiae rash on her legs, and her gums were bleeding. Once admitted to the emergency department, her platelet count of 5000/mm³ was a dead giveaway of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).

In Dr. Stone’s experience, new and otherwise unexplained symptoms so soon post COVID-19 can’t be written off as a coincidence without some additional consideration. But a quick preliminary search of the literature during her rounds came up almost empty. She found one report with three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP. But other online resources made no mention of it. Kenneth Johnson, MD, the hematologist/oncologist consulting on the new case, told Dr. Stone he’d seen one other case of post-COVID-19 ITP only earlier that month. Dr. Stone called a sister hospital. They’d seen one other case just weeks before.

“I was surprised to find just three cases in the literature when we had seen three among us in a matter of weeks,” Dr. Stone said in an interview. Something was missing.
 

A missing link

ITP is caused by an immune reaction against a patient’s own platelets. Platelet numbers drop, causing easy bruising, bleeding gums, and internal bleeding. Acute cases can usually be resolved within 3 months, but for some patients the condition can be extended or even chronic.

“We know that infections like influenza can cause ITP, so in this light, [COVID-19-associated ITP] might not be surprising,” Gerard Jansen, MD, PhD, an internist and hematologist in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Dr. Jansen and colleagues recorded three cases of post-COVID-19 ITP in May 2020 – the report Dr. Stone had found during her shift. Two patients developed ITP several weeks after COVID-19 and responded to treatment with corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG). The third patient, however, died of intracerebral bleeding while still battling COVID-19. He was retrospectively diagnosed with COVID-19-associated ITP.

A deeper dive into the literature uncovers additional case reports from India, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and one from China as early as January 2020. A September 2020 review of ITP secondary to COVID-19 included 23 papers and a total of 45 patients. The review authors noted that more than 70% of cases occurred in patients who were aged over 50 years and 75% had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. However, the sample size of 45 is too small to definitively describe what’s happening in the overall population.

ITP’s link to COVID-19 gained a media spotlight after the Miami obstetrician, Gregory Michael, MD, developed ITP days after getting the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. In early January, after 2 weeks in the ICU, Dr. Michael died of a hemorrhagic stroke caused by the low platelet count.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company is “actively investigating” the case, “but we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Other experts have said the timing, particularly in a relatively young and healthy man, means a link to the vaccine is possible or even likely, but final results won›t be known until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finishes its investigation.

But “it is quite unusual to die from ITP,” San Diego hematologist Dr. Johnson said in an interview. In his more than 20 years of practice, he has never had a patient die from the condition.

For his part, Dr. Jansen, the hematologist in Rotterdam, said that at this point we just don’t know if there’s a link between the vaccine and ITP. Both infection and drugs are well established causes of ITP, so with that general mechanism or pathology in mind it makes sense that COVID-19 and the vaccine could instigate ITP. But it would be very difficult to prove in just one instance, he said. And considering the millions who have thus far received the vaccine without incident, and the known risks and dangers of COVID-19, “we still advise to vaccinate,” he said.
 

The number of cases is underestimated

Since his original case report in May, Dr. Jansen has seen five or so additional cases. But the causal link between the coronavirus and the hematologic symptoms is still undefined. “We don’t know much about platelet counts in COVID-19 at all,” he said. It could be that COVID-19 somehow inhibits platelet production or that it kills existing platelets. Whatever the exact relationship to the virus, Dr. Jansen expects that the true number of COVID-19-related ITP cases is higher than current estimates suggest.

One reason it isn’t coming up more often, Dr. Jansen said, may be that the cause of ITP in COVID-19 patients is hard to pin down. In the case report from May, Dr. Jansen and colleagues wrote: “And there are numerous other factors that can cause thrombocytopenia where COVID is concerned. For instance the coagulation activation by COVID‐19 infection leading to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and subsequent thrombocytopenia. Also, treatments for COVID‐19, including heparin, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine, may lead to thrombocytopenia.”

Tracking and understanding COVID-19-associated ITP first requires the extensive process of elimination needed to diagnose it.

In addition, drugs used to treat COVID-19 could be masking COVID-19-related ITP. “Dexamethasone is a mainstay of COVID treatment. And it’s how we treat ITP,” Dr. Johnson said, which means physicians may be treating ITP without even registering it. And that’s one hypothesis for why Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson didn’t see a case until 9 months into the pandemic.

Treating COVID-19-associated ITP also has its challenges, particularly in patients who develop it during an acute COVID-19 infection and are at risk for both internal bleeding and thrombosis. This was the case for the third patient in Dr. Jansen’s case report. The patient developed a pulmonary embolism and had a falling platelet count. He was given a platelet infusion and then an anticoagulant for the thrombosis. But a retrospective look at the case revealed the transfusion “did not increase numbers at all – which suggests ITP,” Dr. Jansen said. Intracerebral bleeding was the cause of death.

That’s why “it’s important to be aware of this phenomenon,” Dr. Jansen said of COVID-19-associated ITP. If a transfusion is unsuccessful, consider that the patient may have ITP and adjust. Dr. Johnson hasn’t had to treat a patient battling both complications simultaneously but says the ideal course of action would be to raise platelets with steroids and IVIG and then give the anticoagulant once the platelet count is higher. But reality is rarely ideal. Often these two treatments will have to be given concurrently since the patient faces two life-threatening risks, he said. “It’s a very challenging situation,” he said.

The good news is that standard treatments for ITP seem to work for COVID-19-associated ITP. The 30-year-old patient of Dr. Stone and Dr. Johnson responded so well to intravenous steroids that IVIG was unnecessary. She’s now on a slow prednisone taper and maintains platelet counts at 114,000/mm³ at her weekly follow-up appointments with Dr. Johnson.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jansen’s two other patients, now nearly a year out of treatment, require no additional medication. One of the patients is fully recovered and, though the other still has lower than normal platelet counts, she has no bleeding symptoms and her platelet counts remain stable. Still, Dr. Jansen is anxious for more data looking at the platelet counts in every COVID-19 patient and to combine findings from existing COVID-19-associated ITP patients.

For Dr. Stone, she says she’s added one COVID-19-associated complication to her belt. One less aftereffect will catch her off guard. And she wants others to have the same information.

“It’s just a little bit daunting. We don’t know how bad post-COVID will be,” she said. “There’s so many levels to this disease. Some people deal with it for so long and some people just get better and move on – we think ... so far.”
 

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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