MDedge Cardiology

Masks, it seems, are effective at blocking the transmission of coronavirus. They’re also pretty good at stultifying consonants. For those specialties not accustomed to wearing a mask all day, it’s frustrating: How many times have you had to repeat yourself today? Or ask your patient to say something again? (Ain’t no one got time to repeat a third time how to do that prednisone taper). Worse, we’re losing important nonverbal cues that help us connect with our patients. How can we be understood when our faces are covered and 6 feet away?

Masks muffle both verbal and nonverbal communication. For soft-spoken or high-pitched speakers, the verbal effect is significant. In particular, masks make hearing consonants more difficult. They can make the “sh,” “th,” “f,” and “s” sounds difficult to distinguish. Typically, we’d use context and lip reading to boost the signal, but this fix is blocked (and the clear mouth-window masks are kinda creepy). 

Masks also prevent us from seeing facial microexpressions, critical information when you are trying to connect with someone or to build trust. A randomized controlled trial published in 2013 indeed showed that doctors wearing a mask were perceived as less empathetic and had diminished relational continuity with patients as compared to doctors not wearing a mask. There are a few things we can do to help. 

Speak more loudly is obvious advice. Loud talking has limitations though, as it can feel rude, and it blunts inflections, which add richness and emotion. (Shouting “THIS WILL ONLY HURT A LITTLE” seems a mixed message). More important than the volume is your choice of words. Try to use simple terms and short sentences. Pause between points. Hit your consonants harder. 

It’s also important that you have their full attention and are giving yours. As much as possible, try to align squared up with patients. Facing your computer exacerbates the problem. Look them in their eyes and be sure they are connected with you before any complex or difficult conversations. Hearing-impaired patients are now sometimes leaving out their aids because it’s too uncomfortable to wear them with their mask. You might ask them to put them back in. Check in with patients and repeat back what you heard them say. This can help with clarity and with connecting. Use your face more: if you’ve ever acted on stage, this would be your on-stage face. Exaggerate your expressions so it’s a little easier for them to read you. 

Lastly, there are apps such as Ava or Google Live Translator, which can transcribe your speech real time. You could then share your screen with the patient so they can read exactly what you’ve said. 

Some of us are natural communicators. Even if you are not, you can mitigate some of our current challenges. I’ll admit, it’s been a bit easier for me than for others. Between my prominent eyebrows and Italian-American upbringing, I can express my way through pretty much any face covering.  If you’d like to learn how to use your hands better, then just watch this little girl: https://youtu.be/Z5wAWyqDrnc.

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

Masks, it seems, are effective at blocking the transmission of coronavirus. They’re also pretty good at stultifying consonants. For those specialties not accustomed to wearing a mask all day, it’s frustrating: How many times have you had to repeat yourself today? Or ask your patient to say something again? (Ain’t no one got time to repeat a third time how to do that prednisone taper). Worse, we’re losing important nonverbal cues that help us connect with our patients. How can we be understood when our faces are covered and 6 feet away?

Masks muffle both verbal and nonverbal communication. For soft-spoken or high-pitched speakers, the verbal effect is significant. In particular, masks make hearing consonants more difficult. They can make the “sh,” “th,” “f,” and “s” sounds difficult to distinguish. Typically, we’d use context and lip reading to boost the signal, but this fix is blocked (and the clear mouth-window masks are kinda creepy). 

Masks also prevent us from seeing facial microexpressions, critical information when you are trying to connect with someone or to build trust. A randomized controlled trial published in 2013 indeed showed that doctors wearing a mask were perceived as less empathetic and had diminished relational continuity with patients as compared to doctors not wearing a mask. There are a few things we can do to help. 

Speak more loudly is obvious advice. Loud talking has limitations though, as it can feel rude, and it blunts inflections, which add richness and emotion. (Shouting “THIS WILL ONLY HURT A LITTLE” seems a mixed message). More important than the volume is your choice of words. Try to use simple terms and short sentences. Pause between points. Hit your consonants harder. 

It’s also important that you have their full attention and are giving yours. As much as possible, try to align squared up with patients. Facing your computer exacerbates the problem. Look them in their eyes and be sure they are connected with you before any complex or difficult conversations. Hearing-impaired patients are now sometimes leaving out their aids because it’s too uncomfortable to wear them with their mask. You might ask them to put them back in. Check in with patients and repeat back what you heard them say. This can help with clarity and with connecting. Use your face more: if you’ve ever acted on stage, this would be your on-stage face. Exaggerate your expressions so it’s a little easier for them to read you. 

Lastly, there are apps such as Ava or Google Live Translator, which can transcribe your speech real time. You could then share your screen with the patient so they can read exactly what you’ve said. 

Some of us are natural communicators. Even if you are not, you can mitigate some of our current challenges. I’ll admit, it’s been a bit easier for me than for others. Between my prominent eyebrows and Italian-American upbringing, I can express my way through pretty much any face covering.  If you’d like to learn how to use your hands better, then just watch this little girl: https://youtu.be/Z5wAWyqDrnc.

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

Masks, it seems, are effective at blocking the transmission of coronavirus. They’re also pretty good at stultifying consonants. For those specialties not accustomed to wearing a mask all day, it’s frustrating: How many times have you had to repeat yourself today? Or ask your patient to say something again? (Ain’t no one got time to repeat a third time how to do that prednisone taper). Worse, we’re losing important nonverbal cues that help us connect with our patients. How can we be understood when our faces are covered and 6 feet away?

Masks muffle both verbal and nonverbal communication. For soft-spoken or high-pitched speakers, the verbal effect is significant. In particular, masks make hearing consonants more difficult. They can make the “sh,” “th,” “f,” and “s” sounds difficult to distinguish. Typically, we’d use context and lip reading to boost the signal, but this fix is blocked (and the clear mouth-window masks are kinda creepy). 

Masks also prevent us from seeing facial microexpressions, critical information when you are trying to connect with someone or to build trust. A randomized controlled trial published in 2013 indeed showed that doctors wearing a mask were perceived as less empathetic and had diminished relational continuity with patients as compared to doctors not wearing a mask. There are a few things we can do to help. 

Speak more loudly is obvious advice. Loud talking has limitations though, as it can feel rude, and it blunts inflections, which add richness and emotion. (Shouting “THIS WILL ONLY HURT A LITTLE” seems a mixed message). More important than the volume is your choice of words. Try to use simple terms and short sentences. Pause between points. Hit your consonants harder. 

It’s also important that you have their full attention and are giving yours. As much as possible, try to align squared up with patients. Facing your computer exacerbates the problem. Look them in their eyes and be sure they are connected with you before any complex or difficult conversations. Hearing-impaired patients are now sometimes leaving out their aids because it’s too uncomfortable to wear them with their mask. You might ask them to put them back in. Check in with patients and repeat back what you heard them say. This can help with clarity and with connecting. Use your face more: if you’ve ever acted on stage, this would be your on-stage face. Exaggerate your expressions so it’s a little easier for them to read you. 

Lastly, there are apps such as Ava or Google Live Translator, which can transcribe your speech real time. You could then share your screen with the patient so they can read exactly what you’ve said. 

Some of us are natural communicators. Even if you are not, you can mitigate some of our current challenges. I’ll admit, it’s been a bit easier for me than for others. Between my prominent eyebrows and Italian-American upbringing, I can express my way through pretty much any face covering.  If you’d like to learn how to use your hands better, then just watch this little girl: https://youtu.be/Z5wAWyqDrnc.

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

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial had significant protection against progression of renal dysfunction in a prespecified secondary analysis.

The 2,419 patients with HFpEF who received sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) had half the rate of the primary adverse renal outcome, compared with the 2,403 patients randomized to valsartan alone in the comparator group, a significant difference, according to the results published online Sept. 29 in Circulation by Finnian R. McCausland, MBBCh, and colleagues.

In absolute terms, sacubitril/valsartan treatment, an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), cut the incidence of the combined renal endpoint – renal death, end-stage renal disease, or at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) – from 2.7% in the control group to 1.4% in the sacubitril/valsartan group during a median follow-up of 35 months.

The absolute difference of 1.3% equated to a number needed to treat of 51 to prevent one of these events.

Also notable was that renal protection from sacubitril/valsartan was equally robust across the range of baseline kidney function.
 

‘An important therapeutic option’

The efficacy “across the spectrum of baseline renal function” indicates treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is “an important therapeutic option to slow renal-function decline in patients with heart failure,” wrote Dr. McCausland, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.

The authors’ conclusion is striking because currently no drug class has produced clear evidence for efficacy in HFpEF.

On the other hand, the PARAGON-HF trial that provided the data for this new analysis was statistically neutral for its primary endpoint – a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure – with a P value of .06 and 95% confidence interval of 0.75-1.01.

“Because this difference [in the primary endpoint incidence between the two study group] did not meet the predetermined level of statistical significance, subsequent analyses were considered to be exploratory,” noted the authors of the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Despite this limitation in interpreting secondary outcomes from the trial, the new report of a significant renal benefit “opens the potential to provide evidence-based treatment for patients with HFpEF,” commented Sheldon W. Tobe, MD, and Stephanie Poon, MD, in an editorial accompanying the latest analysis.

“At the very least, these results are certainly intriguing and suggest that there may be important patient subgroups with HFpEF who might benefit from using sacubitril/valsartan,” they emphasized.
 

First large trial to show renal improvement in HFpEF

The editorialists’ enthusiasm for the implications of the new findings relate in part to the fact that “PARAGON-HF is the first large trial to demonstrate improvement in renal parameters in HFpEF,” they noted.

“The finding that the composite renal outcome did not differ according to baseline eGFR is significant and suggests that the beneficial effect on renal function was indirect, possibly linked to improved cardiac function,” say Dr. Tobe, a nephrologist, and Dr. Poon, a cardiologist, both at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

PARAGON-HF enrolled 4,822 HFpEF patients at 848 centers in 43 countries, and the efficacy analysis included 4,796 patients.

The composite renal outcome was mainly driven by the incidence of a 50% or greater drop from baseline in eGFR, which occurred in 27 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 60 patients (2.5%) who received valsartan alone.

The annual average drop in eGFR during the study was 2.0 mL/min per 1.73m² in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 2.7 mL/min per 1.73m² in the control group.

Although the heart failure community was disappointed that sacubitril/valsartan failed to show a significant benefit for the study’s primary outcome in HFpEF, the combination has become a mainstay of treatment for patients with HFpEF based on its performance in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

And despite the unqualified support sacubitril/valsartan now receives in guidelines and its label as a foundational treatment for HFpEF, the formulation has had a hard time gaining traction in U.S. practice, often because of barriers placed by third-party payers.

PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McCausland has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tobe has reported participating on a steering committee for Bayer Fidelio/Figaro studies and being a speaker on behalf of Pfizer and Servier. Dr. Poon has reported being an adviser to Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
 

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

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial had significant protection against progression of renal dysfunction in a prespecified secondary analysis.

The 2,419 patients with HFpEF who received sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) had half the rate of the primary adverse renal outcome, compared with the 2,403 patients randomized to valsartan alone in the comparator group, a significant difference, according to the results published online Sept. 29 in Circulation by Finnian R. McCausland, MBBCh, and colleagues.

In absolute terms, sacubitril/valsartan treatment, an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), cut the incidence of the combined renal endpoint – renal death, end-stage renal disease, or at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) – from 2.7% in the control group to 1.4% in the sacubitril/valsartan group during a median follow-up of 35 months.

The absolute difference of 1.3% equated to a number needed to treat of 51 to prevent one of these events.

Also notable was that renal protection from sacubitril/valsartan was equally robust across the range of baseline kidney function.
 

‘An important therapeutic option’

The efficacy “across the spectrum of baseline renal function” indicates treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is “an important therapeutic option to slow renal-function decline in patients with heart failure,” wrote Dr. McCausland, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.

The authors’ conclusion is striking because currently no drug class has produced clear evidence for efficacy in HFpEF.

On the other hand, the PARAGON-HF trial that provided the data for this new analysis was statistically neutral for its primary endpoint – a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure – with a P value of .06 and 95% confidence interval of 0.75-1.01.

“Because this difference [in the primary endpoint incidence between the two study group] did not meet the predetermined level of statistical significance, subsequent analyses were considered to be exploratory,” noted the authors of the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Despite this limitation in interpreting secondary outcomes from the trial, the new report of a significant renal benefit “opens the potential to provide evidence-based treatment for patients with HFpEF,” commented Sheldon W. Tobe, MD, and Stephanie Poon, MD, in an editorial accompanying the latest analysis.

“At the very least, these results are certainly intriguing and suggest that there may be important patient subgroups with HFpEF who might benefit from using sacubitril/valsartan,” they emphasized.
 

First large trial to show renal improvement in HFpEF

The editorialists’ enthusiasm for the implications of the new findings relate in part to the fact that “PARAGON-HF is the first large trial to demonstrate improvement in renal parameters in HFpEF,” they noted.

“The finding that the composite renal outcome did not differ according to baseline eGFR is significant and suggests that the beneficial effect on renal function was indirect, possibly linked to improved cardiac function,” say Dr. Tobe, a nephrologist, and Dr. Poon, a cardiologist, both at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

PARAGON-HF enrolled 4,822 HFpEF patients at 848 centers in 43 countries, and the efficacy analysis included 4,796 patients.

The composite renal outcome was mainly driven by the incidence of a 50% or greater drop from baseline in eGFR, which occurred in 27 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 60 patients (2.5%) who received valsartan alone.

The annual average drop in eGFR during the study was 2.0 mL/min per 1.73m² in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 2.7 mL/min per 1.73m² in the control group.

Although the heart failure community was disappointed that sacubitril/valsartan failed to show a significant benefit for the study’s primary outcome in HFpEF, the combination has become a mainstay of treatment for patients with HFpEF based on its performance in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

And despite the unqualified support sacubitril/valsartan now receives in guidelines and its label as a foundational treatment for HFpEF, the formulation has had a hard time gaining traction in U.S. practice, often because of barriers placed by third-party payers.

PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McCausland has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tobe has reported participating on a steering committee for Bayer Fidelio/Figaro studies and being a speaker on behalf of Pfizer and Servier. Dr. Poon has reported being an adviser to Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
 

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

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial had significant protection against progression of renal dysfunction in a prespecified secondary analysis.

The 2,419 patients with HFpEF who received sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) had half the rate of the primary adverse renal outcome, compared with the 2,403 patients randomized to valsartan alone in the comparator group, a significant difference, according to the results published online Sept. 29 in Circulation by Finnian R. McCausland, MBBCh, and colleagues.

In absolute terms, sacubitril/valsartan treatment, an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), cut the incidence of the combined renal endpoint – renal death, end-stage renal disease, or at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) – from 2.7% in the control group to 1.4% in the sacubitril/valsartan group during a median follow-up of 35 months.

The absolute difference of 1.3% equated to a number needed to treat of 51 to prevent one of these events.

Also notable was that renal protection from sacubitril/valsartan was equally robust across the range of baseline kidney function.
 

‘An important therapeutic option’

The efficacy “across the spectrum of baseline renal function” indicates treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is “an important therapeutic option to slow renal-function decline in patients with heart failure,” wrote Dr. McCausland, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.

The authors’ conclusion is striking because currently no drug class has produced clear evidence for efficacy in HFpEF.

On the other hand, the PARAGON-HF trial that provided the data for this new analysis was statistically neutral for its primary endpoint – a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure – with a P value of .06 and 95% confidence interval of 0.75-1.01.

“Because this difference [in the primary endpoint incidence between the two study group] did not meet the predetermined level of statistical significance, subsequent analyses were considered to be exploratory,” noted the authors of the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Despite this limitation in interpreting secondary outcomes from the trial, the new report of a significant renal benefit “opens the potential to provide evidence-based treatment for patients with HFpEF,” commented Sheldon W. Tobe, MD, and Stephanie Poon, MD, in an editorial accompanying the latest analysis.

“At the very least, these results are certainly intriguing and suggest that there may be important patient subgroups with HFpEF who might benefit from using sacubitril/valsartan,” they emphasized.
 

First large trial to show renal improvement in HFpEF

The editorialists’ enthusiasm for the implications of the new findings relate in part to the fact that “PARAGON-HF is the first large trial to demonstrate improvement in renal parameters in HFpEF,” they noted.

“The finding that the composite renal outcome did not differ according to baseline eGFR is significant and suggests that the beneficial effect on renal function was indirect, possibly linked to improved cardiac function,” say Dr. Tobe, a nephrologist, and Dr. Poon, a cardiologist, both at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

PARAGON-HF enrolled 4,822 HFpEF patients at 848 centers in 43 countries, and the efficacy analysis included 4,796 patients.

The composite renal outcome was mainly driven by the incidence of a 50% or greater drop from baseline in eGFR, which occurred in 27 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 60 patients (2.5%) who received valsartan alone.

The annual average drop in eGFR during the study was 2.0 mL/min per 1.73m² in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 2.7 mL/min per 1.73m² in the control group.

Although the heart failure community was disappointed that sacubitril/valsartan failed to show a significant benefit for the study’s primary outcome in HFpEF, the combination has become a mainstay of treatment for patients with HFpEF based on its performance in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

And despite the unqualified support sacubitril/valsartan now receives in guidelines and its label as a foundational treatment for HFpEF, the formulation has had a hard time gaining traction in U.S. practice, often because of barriers placed by third-party payers.

PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McCausland has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tobe has reported participating on a steering committee for Bayer Fidelio/Figaro studies and being a speaker on behalf of Pfizer and Servier. Dr. Poon has reported being an adviser to Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
 

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

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with drug-eluting stents proved a winning strategy in TICO-STEMI, a major randomized trial.

“This is the first report assessing the feasibility of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT for STEMI patients with drug-eluting stents,” Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD, noted at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

The positive results were consistent with the earlier TWILIGHT study (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention), which also showed clinical benefit at 1 year for 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor (Brilinta) monotherapy, albeit only in PCI patients without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or with non-STEMI ACS (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

TICO-STEMI was a prespecified substudy involving the 1,103 STEMI patients included in the previously reported parent 38-center South Korean TICO (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI) study of 3,056 ACS patients treated with a second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323[23]:2407-16).

The primary outcome in TICO-STEMI was the 12-month composite rate of net adverse clinical events, composed of major bleeding, all-cause mortality, acute MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate was 5.0% in the 12-month DAPT group and 3.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT, for a 27% relative risk reduction which didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, in an as-treated analysis, the between-group difference in the primary endpoint was stronger: a 5.2% incidence with 12 months of DAPT and 2.3% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a relative risk reduction of 56%, which was statistically significant.

Major bleeding, one of two key secondary endpoints, was a different story: The incidence within 12 months by intention-to-treat was 2.9% with 12 months of DAPT compared to 0.9% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a statistically significant 68% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the other secondary endpoint composed of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events: 2.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy, 2.5% with 12 months of DAPT.

In the subgroup of TICO-STEMI patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 12-month major bleeding rate of 1.8%, compared to 6.3% with a full year of DAPT. Conversely, in patients who underwent complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 4.9% rate of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events through 1 year, numerically greater than but not statistically significantly different from the 2.7% rate with 12 months of DAPT.

Dr. Kim noted that the study had several limitations: It was open label, had no placebo control, and was underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the merits of dropping aspirin and continuing ticagrelor after 3 months in STEMI patients.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution and call for confirmatory randomized trials,” he stressed.

Session comoderator Roxana Mehran, MD, said she “wholeheartedly” agrees with that assessment.

“We really do need a future trial, and we’re working to design TWILIGHT-STEMI,” a large randomized follow-up to the TWILIGHT trial, which she directed.

“I often imagine that we can have an even shorter duration of aspirin and ticagrelor and go to monotherapy sooner than 3 months in this very, very important subgroup,” added Dr. Mehran, professor of medicine, professor of population science and policy, and director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland, calculated that the number-needed-to-treat with ticagrelor monotherapy rather than 12 months of DAPT in order to prevent one additional major bleeding event in TICO-STEMI participants at high bleeding risk was 22, as compared to an NNT of 77 in those without high bleeding risk.

MDedge News

[email protected]

Ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with drug-eluting stents proved a winning strategy in TICO-STEMI, a major randomized trial.

“This is the first report assessing the feasibility of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT for STEMI patients with drug-eluting stents,” Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD, noted at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

The positive results were consistent with the earlier TWILIGHT study (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention), which also showed clinical benefit at 1 year for 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor (Brilinta) monotherapy, albeit only in PCI patients without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or with non-STEMI ACS (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

TICO-STEMI was a prespecified substudy involving the 1,103 STEMI patients included in the previously reported parent 38-center South Korean TICO (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI) study of 3,056 ACS patients treated with a second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323[23]:2407-16).

The primary outcome in TICO-STEMI was the 12-month composite rate of net adverse clinical events, composed of major bleeding, all-cause mortality, acute MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate was 5.0% in the 12-month DAPT group and 3.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT, for a 27% relative risk reduction which didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, in an as-treated analysis, the between-group difference in the primary endpoint was stronger: a 5.2% incidence with 12 months of DAPT and 2.3% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a relative risk reduction of 56%, which was statistically significant.

Major bleeding, one of two key secondary endpoints, was a different story: The incidence within 12 months by intention-to-treat was 2.9% with 12 months of DAPT compared to 0.9% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a statistically significant 68% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the other secondary endpoint composed of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events: 2.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy, 2.5% with 12 months of DAPT.

In the subgroup of TICO-STEMI patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 12-month major bleeding rate of 1.8%, compared to 6.3% with a full year of DAPT. Conversely, in patients who underwent complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 4.9% rate of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events through 1 year, numerically greater than but not statistically significantly different from the 2.7% rate with 12 months of DAPT.

Dr. Kim noted that the study had several limitations: It was open label, had no placebo control, and was underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the merits of dropping aspirin and continuing ticagrelor after 3 months in STEMI patients.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution and call for confirmatory randomized trials,” he stressed.

Session comoderator Roxana Mehran, MD, said she “wholeheartedly” agrees with that assessment.

“We really do need a future trial, and we’re working to design TWILIGHT-STEMI,” a large randomized follow-up to the TWILIGHT trial, which she directed.

“I often imagine that we can have an even shorter duration of aspirin and ticagrelor and go to monotherapy sooner than 3 months in this very, very important subgroup,” added Dr. Mehran, professor of medicine, professor of population science and policy, and director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland, calculated that the number-needed-to-treat with ticagrelor monotherapy rather than 12 months of DAPT in order to prevent one additional major bleeding event in TICO-STEMI participants at high bleeding risk was 22, as compared to an NNT of 77 in those without high bleeding risk.

MDedge News

[email protected]

Ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with drug-eluting stents proved a winning strategy in TICO-STEMI, a major randomized trial.

“This is the first report assessing the feasibility of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT for STEMI patients with drug-eluting stents,” Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD, noted at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

The positive results were consistent with the earlier TWILIGHT study (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention), which also showed clinical benefit at 1 year for 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor (Brilinta) monotherapy, albeit only in PCI patients without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or with non-STEMI ACS (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

TICO-STEMI was a prespecified substudy involving the 1,103 STEMI patients included in the previously reported parent 38-center South Korean TICO (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI) study of 3,056 ACS patients treated with a second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323[23]:2407-16).

The primary outcome in TICO-STEMI was the 12-month composite rate of net adverse clinical events, composed of major bleeding, all-cause mortality, acute MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate was 5.0% in the 12-month DAPT group and 3.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT, for a 27% relative risk reduction which didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, in an as-treated analysis, the between-group difference in the primary endpoint was stronger: a 5.2% incidence with 12 months of DAPT and 2.3% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a relative risk reduction of 56%, which was statistically significant.

Major bleeding, one of two key secondary endpoints, was a different story: The incidence within 12 months by intention-to-treat was 2.9% with 12 months of DAPT compared to 0.9% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a statistically significant 68% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the other secondary endpoint composed of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events: 2.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy, 2.5% with 12 months of DAPT.

In the subgroup of TICO-STEMI patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 12-month major bleeding rate of 1.8%, compared to 6.3% with a full year of DAPT. Conversely, in patients who underwent complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 4.9% rate of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events through 1 year, numerically greater than but not statistically significantly different from the 2.7% rate with 12 months of DAPT.

Dr. Kim noted that the study had several limitations: It was open label, had no placebo control, and was underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the merits of dropping aspirin and continuing ticagrelor after 3 months in STEMI patients.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution and call for confirmatory randomized trials,” he stressed.

Session comoderator Roxana Mehran, MD, said she “wholeheartedly” agrees with that assessment.

“We really do need a future trial, and we’re working to design TWILIGHT-STEMI,” a large randomized follow-up to the TWILIGHT trial, which she directed.

“I often imagine that we can have an even shorter duration of aspirin and ticagrelor and go to monotherapy sooner than 3 months in this very, very important subgroup,” added Dr. Mehran, professor of medicine, professor of population science and policy, and director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland, calculated that the number-needed-to-treat with ticagrelor monotherapy rather than 12 months of DAPT in order to prevent one additional major bleeding event in TICO-STEMI participants at high bleeding risk was 22, as compared to an NNT of 77 in those without high bleeding risk.

MDedge News

[email protected]

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]