MDedge Cardiology

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

After taking a nosedive during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, then rising and plateauing, weekly outpatient visits in the United States have rebounded and now slightly exceed levels seen in late February, according to new data.

Overall visits plunged by almost 60% at the low point in late March and did not start recovering until late June, when visits were still off by 10%. Visits began to rise again – by 2% over the March 1 baseline – around Labor Day.

As of Oct. 4, visits had returned to that March 1 baseline, which was slightly higher than in late February, according to data analyzed by Harvard University, the Commonwealth Fund, and the healthcare technology company Phreesia, which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments, and has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states.

The study was published online by the Commonwealth Fund.

In-person visits are still down 6% from the March 1 baseline. Telemedicine visits – which surged in mid-April to account for some 13%-14% of visits – have subsided to 6% of visits.

Many states reopened businesses and lifted travel restrictions in early September, benefiting medical practices in some areas. But clinicians in some regions are still facing rising COVID-19 cases, as well as “the challenges of keeping patients and clinicians safe while also maintaining revenue,” wrote the report authors.

Some specialties are still hard hit. For the week starting Oct. 4, visits to pulmonologists were off 20% from March 1. Otolaryngology visits were down 17%, and behavioral health visits were down 14%. Cardiology, allergy/immunology, neurology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology also saw drops of 5%-10% from March.

Patients were flocking to dermatologists, however. Visits were up 17% over baseline. Primary care also was popular, with a 13% increase over March 1.

At the height of the pandemic shutdown in late March, Medicare beneficiaries stayed away from doctors the most. Visits dipped 63%, compared with 56% for the commercially insured, and 52% for those on Medicaid. Now, Medicare visits are up 3% over baseline, while Medicaid visits are down 1% and commercially insured visits have risen 1% from March.

The over-65 age group did not have the steepest drop in visits when analyzed by age. Children aged 3-17 years saw the biggest decline at the height of the shutdown. Infants to 5-year-olds have still not returned to prepandemic visit levels. Those visits are off by 10%-18%. The 65-and-older group is up 4% from March.

Larger practices – with more than six clinicians – have seen the biggest rebound, after having had the largest dip in visits, from a decline of 53% in late March to a 14% rise over that baseline. Practices with fewer than five clinicians are still 6% down from the March baseline.
 

Wide variation in telemedicine use

The researchers reported a massive gap in the percentage of various specialties that are using telemedicine. At the top end are behavioral health specialists, where 41% of visits are by telemedicine.

The next-closest specialty is endocrinology, which has 14% of visits via telemedicine, on par with rheumatology, neurology, and gastroenterology. At the low end: ophthalmology, with zero virtual visits; otolaryngology (1%), orthopedics (1%), surgery (2%), and dermatology and ob.gyn., both at 3%.

Smaller practices – with fewer than five clinicians – never adopted telemedicine at the rate of the larger practices. During the mid-April peak, about 10% of the smaller practices were using telemedicine in adult primary care practices, compared with 19% of those primary care practices with more than six clinicians.

The gap persists. Currently, 9% of the larger practices are using telemedicine, compared with 4% of small practices.

One-third of all provider organizations analyzed never-adopted telemedicine. And while use continues, it is now mostly minimal. At the April peak, 35% of the practices with telemedicine reported heavy use – that is, in more than 20% of visits. In September, 9% said they had such heavy use.

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

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

No hint of increased mortality risk in association with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease was detected in VOYAGER PAD, a multithousand-patient randomized trial with long-term follow-up and ascertainment of vital status in 99.6% of participants.

Observers opined that the VOYAGER PAD findings effectively put to rest a nearly 2-year-old controversy over whether paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) carry an increased mortality risk. The imbroglio, which was ignited by a meta-analysis of clinical trials with substantial amounts of missing follow-up data, triggered an Food and Drug Administration warning letter to health care providers which threw the field of vascular medicine into disarray.

“Although as a community we’ve continued to struggle with this issue of paclitaxel and mortality, VOYAGER PAD does fill many of the gaps and addresses many of the limitations of currently available data,” Connie N. Hess, MD, said in reporting results of a prespecified analysis of the trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting. “I think these are the most definitive data to date supporting the safety of drug-coated device use.”

VOYAGER PAD was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which 6,564 patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background low-dose aspirin. In the previously reported primary outcome, the group on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant 15% reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, MI, ischemic stroke, or major amputation for vascular causes.

Of the 4,316 patients included in the prespecified analysis by Dr. Hess, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, 31% received a paclitaxel-coated device. At 3.5 years of follow-up, they had a 10.2% all-cause mortality rate, significantly less than the 13.5% rate in patients who didn’t get a drug-coated device. But since study participants weren’t randomized for drug-coated device use, the investigators utilized a rigorous form of propensity adjustment called inverse probability treatment weighting to neutralize all between-group differences in potentially confounding baseline characteristics, including statin use, prevalence of claudication, and target lesion length.

In the weighted analysis, the all-cause mortality rate at 3.5 years was 12.1% in paclitaxel-coated device recipients and 12.6% in those who didn’t get such devices. The difference was not statistically significant, and the hazard ratio of 0.95 had tight confidence intervals.

“We don’t see a mortality benefit, but I think more importantly, we don’t see any risk for mortality,” the cardiologist observed at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

There was no between-group difference in causes of mortality. Nor did all-cause mortality differ by device type, be it paclitaxel-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty, or drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent.

Also, the benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin over aspirin alone in terms of cardiovascular and ischemic limb outcomes was consistent regardless of whether patients got a drug-coated device or not.

Discussant Robert Lookstein, MD, praised Dr. Hess for “a really enlightening presentation.”

“The entire vascular community has been waiting for a prospective, independently adjudicated trial to try to make determinations of whether we can put this issue behind us, and I think this trial is it,” said Dr. Lookstein, professor of interventional radiology and surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Personally, I think this is probably the most impactful data seen regarding the paclitaxel issue in almost 2 years because it is randomized data, it’s prospectively collected data, and – most importantly from my perspective – they were able to collect vital statistics on more than 99.5% of the patients,” he added. “I think this is incredibly impactful to my practice.”

Frank Veith, MD, professor of surgery at New York University, concurred, declaring, “I think this study is a game changer. And I think the paclitaxel game is over.”

The VOYAGER PAD study was funded by institutional research grants from Bayer and Janssen.

[email protected]

No hint of increased mortality risk in association with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease was detected in VOYAGER PAD, a multithousand-patient randomized trial with long-term follow-up and ascertainment of vital status in 99.6% of participants.

Observers opined that the VOYAGER PAD findings effectively put to rest a nearly 2-year-old controversy over whether paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) carry an increased mortality risk. The imbroglio, which was ignited by a meta-analysis of clinical trials with substantial amounts of missing follow-up data, triggered an Food and Drug Administration warning letter to health care providers which threw the field of vascular medicine into disarray.

“Although as a community we’ve continued to struggle with this issue of paclitaxel and mortality, VOYAGER PAD does fill many of the gaps and addresses many of the limitations of currently available data,” Connie N. Hess, MD, said in reporting results of a prespecified analysis of the trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting. “I think these are the most definitive data to date supporting the safety of drug-coated device use.”

VOYAGER PAD was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which 6,564 patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background low-dose aspirin. In the previously reported primary outcome, the group on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant 15% reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, MI, ischemic stroke, or major amputation for vascular causes.

Of the 4,316 patients included in the prespecified analysis by Dr. Hess, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, 31% received a paclitaxel-coated device. At 3.5 years of follow-up, they had a 10.2% all-cause mortality rate, significantly less than the 13.5% rate in patients who didn’t get a drug-coated device. But since study participants weren’t randomized for drug-coated device use, the investigators utilized a rigorous form of propensity adjustment called inverse probability treatment weighting to neutralize all between-group differences in potentially confounding baseline characteristics, including statin use, prevalence of claudication, and target lesion length.

In the weighted analysis, the all-cause mortality rate at 3.5 years was 12.1% in paclitaxel-coated device recipients and 12.6% in those who didn’t get such devices. The difference was not statistically significant, and the hazard ratio of 0.95 had tight confidence intervals.

“We don’t see a mortality benefit, but I think more importantly, we don’t see any risk for mortality,” the cardiologist observed at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

There was no between-group difference in causes of mortality. Nor did all-cause mortality differ by device type, be it paclitaxel-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty, or drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent.

Also, the benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin over aspirin alone in terms of cardiovascular and ischemic limb outcomes was consistent regardless of whether patients got a drug-coated device or not.

Discussant Robert Lookstein, MD, praised Dr. Hess for “a really enlightening presentation.”

“The entire vascular community has been waiting for a prospective, independently adjudicated trial to try to make determinations of whether we can put this issue behind us, and I think this trial is it,” said Dr. Lookstein, professor of interventional radiology and surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Personally, I think this is probably the most impactful data seen regarding the paclitaxel issue in almost 2 years because it is randomized data, it’s prospectively collected data, and – most importantly from my perspective – they were able to collect vital statistics on more than 99.5% of the patients,” he added. “I think this is incredibly impactful to my practice.”

Frank Veith, MD, professor of surgery at New York University, concurred, declaring, “I think this study is a game changer. And I think the paclitaxel game is over.”

The VOYAGER PAD study was funded by institutional research grants from Bayer and Janssen.

[email protected]

No hint of increased mortality risk in association with the use of paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease was detected in VOYAGER PAD, a multithousand-patient randomized trial with long-term follow-up and ascertainment of vital status in 99.6% of participants.

Observers opined that the VOYAGER PAD findings effectively put to rest a nearly 2-year-old controversy over whether paclitaxel-coated devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) carry an increased mortality risk. The imbroglio, which was ignited by a meta-analysis of clinical trials with substantial amounts of missing follow-up data, triggered an Food and Drug Administration warning letter to health care providers which threw the field of vascular medicine into disarray.

“Although as a community we’ve continued to struggle with this issue of paclitaxel and mortality, VOYAGER PAD does fill many of the gaps and addresses many of the limitations of currently available data,” Connie N. Hess, MD, said in reporting results of a prespecified analysis of the trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting. “I think these are the most definitive data to date supporting the safety of drug-coated device use.”

VOYAGER PAD was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which 6,564 patients undergoing lower-extremity revascularization for symptomatic PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background low-dose aspirin. In the previously reported primary outcome, the group on rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant 15% reduction in the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute limb ischemia, MI, ischemic stroke, or major amputation for vascular causes.

Of the 4,316 patients included in the prespecified analysis by Dr. Hess, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, 31% received a paclitaxel-coated device. At 3.5 years of follow-up, they had a 10.2% all-cause mortality rate, significantly less than the 13.5% rate in patients who didn’t get a drug-coated device. But since study participants weren’t randomized for drug-coated device use, the investigators utilized a rigorous form of propensity adjustment called inverse probability treatment weighting to neutralize all between-group differences in potentially confounding baseline characteristics, including statin use, prevalence of claudication, and target lesion length.

In the weighted analysis, the all-cause mortality rate at 3.5 years was 12.1% in paclitaxel-coated device recipients and 12.6% in those who didn’t get such devices. The difference was not statistically significant, and the hazard ratio of 0.95 had tight confidence intervals.

“We don’t see a mortality benefit, but I think more importantly, we don’t see any risk for mortality,” the cardiologist observed at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

There was no between-group difference in causes of mortality. Nor did all-cause mortality differ by device type, be it paclitaxel-coated balloon versus plain balloon angioplasty, or drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent.

Also, the benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin over aspirin alone in terms of cardiovascular and ischemic limb outcomes was consistent regardless of whether patients got a drug-coated device or not.

Discussant Robert Lookstein, MD, praised Dr. Hess for “a really enlightening presentation.”

“The entire vascular community has been waiting for a prospective, independently adjudicated trial to try to make determinations of whether we can put this issue behind us, and I think this trial is it,” said Dr. Lookstein, professor of interventional radiology and surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Personally, I think this is probably the most impactful data seen regarding the paclitaxel issue in almost 2 years because it is randomized data, it’s prospectively collected data, and – most importantly from my perspective – they were able to collect vital statistics on more than 99.5% of the patients,” he added. “I think this is incredibly impactful to my practice.”

Frank Veith, MD, professor of surgery at New York University, concurred, declaring, “I think this study is a game changer. And I think the paclitaxel game is over.”

The VOYAGER PAD study was funded by institutional research grants from Bayer and Janssen.

[email protected]

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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