MDedge Cardiology

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at [email protected].

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Depression or an anxiety disorder in male adolescents was associated with a 20% increased likelihood of experiencing an acute MI in midlife in a Swedish national registry study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The association was mediated in part by poor stress resilience and lack of physical fitness among these teenagers with an affective disorder, reported Cecilia Bergh, PhD, of Obrero (Sweden) University.

Her study was made possible by Sweden’s comprehensive national health care registries coupled with the Nordic nation’s compulsory conscription for military service. The mandatory conscription evaluation during the study years included a semistructured interview with a psychologist to assess stress resilience through questions about coping with everyday life, a medical history and physical examination, and a cardiovascular fitness test using a bicycle ergometer.

The study included 238,013 males born in 1952-1956. They were aged 18-19 years when they underwent their conscription examination, at which time 34,503 of them either received or already had a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. During follow-up from 1987 to 2010, a first acute MI occurred in 5,891 of the men. The risk was increased 51% among those with an earlier teen diagnosis of depression or anxiety.

In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for levels of adolescent cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, and systemic inflammation, as well as additional potential confounders, such as cognitive function, parental socioeconomic index, and a summary disease score, the midlife MI risk associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was attenuated, but still significant, with a 24% increase. Upon further statistical adjustment incorporating adolescent stress resilience and cardiovascular fitness, the increased risk of acute MI in midlife associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was further attenuated yet remained significant, at 18%.

Dr. Bergh shared her thoughts on preventing this increased risk of acute MI at a relatively young age: “Effective prevention might focus on behavior, lifestyle, and psychosocial stress in early life. If a healthy lifestyle is encouraged as early as possible in childhood and adolescence, it is more likely to persist into adulthood and to improve longterm health. So look for signs of stress, depression, or anxiety that is beyond normal teenager behavior and a persistent problem. Teenagers with poor well-being could benefit from additional support to encourage exercise and also to develop strategies to deal with stress.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergh C et al. ESC 2020, Abstract 90524.

Depression or an anxiety disorder in male adolescents was associated with a 20% increased likelihood of experiencing an acute MI in midlife in a Swedish national registry study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The association was mediated in part by poor stress resilience and lack of physical fitness among these teenagers with an affective disorder, reported Cecilia Bergh, PhD, of Obrero (Sweden) University.

Her study was made possible by Sweden’s comprehensive national health care registries coupled with the Nordic nation’s compulsory conscription for military service. The mandatory conscription evaluation during the study years included a semistructured interview with a psychologist to assess stress resilience through questions about coping with everyday life, a medical history and physical examination, and a cardiovascular fitness test using a bicycle ergometer.

The study included 238,013 males born in 1952-1956. They were aged 18-19 years when they underwent their conscription examination, at which time 34,503 of them either received or already had a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. During follow-up from 1987 to 2010, a first acute MI occurred in 5,891 of the men. The risk was increased 51% among those with an earlier teen diagnosis of depression or anxiety.

In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for levels of adolescent cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, and systemic inflammation, as well as additional potential confounders, such as cognitive function, parental socioeconomic index, and a summary disease score, the midlife MI risk associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was attenuated, but still significant, with a 24% increase. Upon further statistical adjustment incorporating adolescent stress resilience and cardiovascular fitness, the increased risk of acute MI in midlife associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was further attenuated yet remained significant, at 18%.

Dr. Bergh shared her thoughts on preventing this increased risk of acute MI at a relatively young age: “Effective prevention might focus on behavior, lifestyle, and psychosocial stress in early life. If a healthy lifestyle is encouraged as early as possible in childhood and adolescence, it is more likely to persist into adulthood and to improve longterm health. So look for signs of stress, depression, or anxiety that is beyond normal teenager behavior and a persistent problem. Teenagers with poor well-being could benefit from additional support to encourage exercise and also to develop strategies to deal with stress.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergh C et al. ESC 2020, Abstract 90524.

Depression or an anxiety disorder in male adolescents was associated with a 20% increased likelihood of experiencing an acute MI in midlife in a Swedish national registry study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The association was mediated in part by poor stress resilience and lack of physical fitness among these teenagers with an affective disorder, reported Cecilia Bergh, PhD, of Obrero (Sweden) University.

Her study was made possible by Sweden’s comprehensive national health care registries coupled with the Nordic nation’s compulsory conscription for military service. The mandatory conscription evaluation during the study years included a semistructured interview with a psychologist to assess stress resilience through questions about coping with everyday life, a medical history and physical examination, and a cardiovascular fitness test using a bicycle ergometer.

The study included 238,013 males born in 1952-1956. They were aged 18-19 years when they underwent their conscription examination, at which time 34,503 of them either received or already had a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. During follow-up from 1987 to 2010, a first acute MI occurred in 5,891 of the men. The risk was increased 51% among those with an earlier teen diagnosis of depression or anxiety.

In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for levels of adolescent cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, and systemic inflammation, as well as additional potential confounders, such as cognitive function, parental socioeconomic index, and a summary disease score, the midlife MI risk associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was attenuated, but still significant, with a 24% increase. Upon further statistical adjustment incorporating adolescent stress resilience and cardiovascular fitness, the increased risk of acute MI in midlife associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was further attenuated yet remained significant, at 18%.

Dr. Bergh shared her thoughts on preventing this increased risk of acute MI at a relatively young age: “Effective prevention might focus on behavior, lifestyle, and psychosocial stress in early life. If a healthy lifestyle is encouraged as early as possible in childhood and adolescence, it is more likely to persist into adulthood and to improve longterm health. So look for signs of stress, depression, or anxiety that is beyond normal teenager behavior and a persistent problem. Teenagers with poor well-being could benefit from additional support to encourage exercise and also to develop strategies to deal with stress.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergh C et al. ESC 2020, Abstract 90524.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The popular new weight-loss approach of eating within a restricted window of time during the day, allowing for an extended period of fasting – also known as intermittent fasting – does not result in greater weight loss, compared with nonrestricted meal timing, results from a randomized clinical trial show.

“I was very surprised by all of [the results],” senior author Ethan J. Weiss, MD, said in an interview.

“Part of the reason we did the study was because I had been doing time-restricted eating myself for years and even recommending it to friends and patients as an effective weight-loss tool,” said Dr. Weiss, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.

“But no matter how you slice it, prescription of time-restricted eating – at least this version –is not a very effective weight-loss strategy,” Dr. Weiss said.

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Dylan A. Lowe, PhD, also of the University of California, San Francisco, involved 116 participants who were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either three structured meals per day or time-restricted eating, with instructions to eat only between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and to completely abstain from eating at other times.

The participants were not given any specific instructions regarding caloric or macronutrient intake “so as to offer a simple, real-world recommendation to free-living individuals,” the authors wrote.

Although some prior research has shown improvements in measures such as glucose tolerance with time-restricted eating, studies showing weight loss with the approach, including one recently reported by Medscape Medical News, have been small and lacked control groups.

“To my knowledge this is the first randomized, controlled trial and definitely the biggest,” Dr. Weiss. “I think it is the most comprehensive dataset available in people, at least for this intervention.”
 

Participants used app to log details

At baseline, participants had a mean weight of 99.2 kg (approximately 219 lb). Their mean age was 46.5 years and 60.3% were men. They were drawn from anywhere in the United States and received study surveys through a custom mobile study application on the Eureka Research Platform. They were given a Bluetooth weight scale to use daily, which was connected with the app, and randomized to one of the two interventions. A subset of 50 participants living near San Francisco underwent in-person testing.

At the end of the 12 weeks, those in the time-restricted eating group (n = 59) did have a significant decrease in weight, compared with baseline (−0.94 kg; P = .01), while weight loss in the consistent-meal group (n = 57) was not significant (−0.68 kg; P = .07).

But importantly, the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of fasting insulin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or blood lipids within or between the time-restricted eating and consistent-meal group either. Nor were there any significant differences in resting metabolic rate.

Although participants did not self-report their caloric intake, the authors estimated that the differences were not significant using mathematical modeling developed at the National Institutes of Health.

Rates of adherence to the diets were 92.1% in the consistent-meal group versus 83.5% in the time-restricted group.
 

Not all diets are equal: Time-restricted eating group lost more lean mass

In a subset analysis, loss of lean mass was significantly greater in the time-restricted eating group, compared with the consistent-meals group, in terms of both appendicular lean mass (P = .009) and the appendicular lean mass index (P = .005).

In fact, as much as 65% of the weight lost (1.10 kg of the average 1.70 kg) in the time-restricted eating group consisted of lean mass, while much less was fat mass (0.51 kg).

“The proportion of lean mass loss in this study (approximately 65%) far exceeds the normal range of 20%-30%,” the authors wrote. “In addition, there was a highly significant between-group difference in appendicular lean mass.”

Appendicular lean mass correlates with nutritional and physical status, and its reduction can lead to weakness, disability, and impaired quality of life.

“This serves as a caution for patient populations at risk for sarcopenia because time-restricted eating could exacerbate muscle loss,” the authors asserted.

Furthermore, previous studies suggest that the loss of lean mass in such studies is positively linked with weight regain.

While a limitation of the work is that self-reported measures of energy or macronutrient or protein intake were not obtained, the authors speculated that the role of protein intake could be linked to the greater loss of lean mass.

“Given the loss of appendicular lean mass in participants in the time-restricted eating arm and previous reports of decreased protein consumption from time-restricted eating, it is possible that protein intake was altered by time-restricted eating in this cohort, and this clearly warrants future study,” they wrote.

Dr. Weiss said the findings underscore that not all weight loss in dieting is beneficial.

“Losing 1 kg of lean mass (is not equal) to a kilogram of fat,” he said. “Indeed, if one loses 0.65 kg of lean mass and only 0.35 kg of fat mass, that is an intervention I’d probably pass on.”
 

Time-restricted eating is popular, perhaps because it’s easy?

Time-restricted eating has gained popularity in recent years.

The approach “is attractive as a weight-loss option in that it does not require tedious and time-consuming methods such as calorie counting or adherence to complicated diets,” the authors noted. “Indeed, we found that self-reported adherence to the time-restricted eating schedule was high; however, in contrast to our hypothesis, there was no greater weight loss with time-restricted eating compared with the consistent meal timing.”

They explain that the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. window for eating was chosen because they thought people might find it easier culturally to skip breakfast than dinner, the more social meal.

However, an 8 p.m. cutoff is somewhat late given there is some suggestion that fasting several hours before bedtime is most beneficial, Dr. Weiss noted. So it may be worth examining different time windows.

“I am very intrigued about looking at early time-restricted eating – 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,” for example, he said. “It is on our list.”

Meanwhile, the study results support previous research showing no effect on weight outcomes in relation to skipping breakfast.

The study received funding from the UCSF cardiology division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, with additional support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Dr. Weiss has reported nonfinancial support from Mocacare and nonfinancial support from iHealth Labs during the conduct of the study. He also is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, and owns stock and was formerly on the board of Virta.

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

The popular new weight-loss approach of eating within a restricted window of time during the day, allowing for an extended period of fasting – also known as intermittent fasting – does not result in greater weight loss, compared with nonrestricted meal timing, results from a randomized clinical trial show.

“I was very surprised by all of [the results],” senior author Ethan J. Weiss, MD, said in an interview.

“Part of the reason we did the study was because I had been doing time-restricted eating myself for years and even recommending it to friends and patients as an effective weight-loss tool,” said Dr. Weiss, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.

“But no matter how you slice it, prescription of time-restricted eating – at least this version –is not a very effective weight-loss strategy,” Dr. Weiss said.

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Dylan A. Lowe, PhD, also of the University of California, San Francisco, involved 116 participants who were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either three structured meals per day or time-restricted eating, with instructions to eat only between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and to completely abstain from eating at other times.

The participants were not given any specific instructions regarding caloric or macronutrient intake “so as to offer a simple, real-world recommendation to free-living individuals,” the authors wrote.

Although some prior research has shown improvements in measures such as glucose tolerance with time-restricted eating, studies showing weight loss with the approach, including one recently reported by Medscape Medical News, have been small and lacked control groups.

“To my knowledge this is the first randomized, controlled trial and definitely the biggest,” Dr. Weiss. “I think it is the most comprehensive dataset available in people, at least for this intervention.”
 

Participants used app to log details

At baseline, participants had a mean weight of 99.2 kg (approximately 219 lb). Their mean age was 46.5 years and 60.3% were men. They were drawn from anywhere in the United States and received study surveys through a custom mobile study application on the Eureka Research Platform. They were given a Bluetooth weight scale to use daily, which was connected with the app, and randomized to one of the two interventions. A subset of 50 participants living near San Francisco underwent in-person testing.

At the end of the 12 weeks, those in the time-restricted eating group (n = 59) did have a significant decrease in weight, compared with baseline (−0.94 kg; P = .01), while weight loss in the consistent-meal group (n = 57) was not significant (−0.68 kg; P = .07).

But importantly, the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of fasting insulin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or blood lipids within or between the time-restricted eating and consistent-meal group either. Nor were there any significant differences in resting metabolic rate.

Although participants did not self-report their caloric intake, the authors estimated that the differences were not significant using mathematical modeling developed at the National Institutes of Health.

Rates of adherence to the diets were 92.1% in the consistent-meal group versus 83.5% in the time-restricted group.
 

Not all diets are equal: Time-restricted eating group lost more lean mass

In a subset analysis, loss of lean mass was significantly greater in the time-restricted eating group, compared with the consistent-meals group, in terms of both appendicular lean mass (P = .009) and the appendicular lean mass index (P = .005).

In fact, as much as 65% of the weight lost (1.10 kg of the average 1.70 kg) in the time-restricted eating group consisted of lean mass, while much less was fat mass (0.51 kg).

“The proportion of lean mass loss in this study (approximately 65%) far exceeds the normal range of 20%-30%,” the authors wrote. “In addition, there was a highly significant between-group difference in appendicular lean mass.”

Appendicular lean mass correlates with nutritional and physical status, and its reduction can lead to weakness, disability, and impaired quality of life.

“This serves as a caution for patient populations at risk for sarcopenia because time-restricted eating could exacerbate muscle loss,” the authors asserted.

Furthermore, previous studies suggest that the loss of lean mass in such studies is positively linked with weight regain.

While a limitation of the work is that self-reported measures of energy or macronutrient or protein intake were not obtained, the authors speculated that the role of protein intake could be linked to the greater loss of lean mass.

“Given the loss of appendicular lean mass in participants in the time-restricted eating arm and previous reports of decreased protein consumption from time-restricted eating, it is possible that protein intake was altered by time-restricted eating in this cohort, and this clearly warrants future study,” they wrote.

Dr. Weiss said the findings underscore that not all weight loss in dieting is beneficial.

“Losing 1 kg of lean mass (is not equal) to a kilogram of fat,” he said. “Indeed, if one loses 0.65 kg of lean mass and only 0.35 kg of fat mass, that is an intervention I’d probably pass on.”
 

Time-restricted eating is popular, perhaps because it’s easy?

Time-restricted eating has gained popularity in recent years.

The approach “is attractive as a weight-loss option in that it does not require tedious and time-consuming methods such as calorie counting or adherence to complicated diets,” the authors noted. “Indeed, we found that self-reported adherence to the time-restricted eating schedule was high; however, in contrast to our hypothesis, there was no greater weight loss with time-restricted eating compared with the consistent meal timing.”

They explain that the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. window for eating was chosen because they thought people might find it easier culturally to skip breakfast than dinner, the more social meal.

However, an 8 p.m. cutoff is somewhat late given there is some suggestion that fasting several hours before bedtime is most beneficial, Dr. Weiss noted. So it may be worth examining different time windows.

“I am very intrigued about looking at early time-restricted eating – 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,” for example, he said. “It is on our list.”

Meanwhile, the study results support previous research showing no effect on weight outcomes in relation to skipping breakfast.

The study received funding from the UCSF cardiology division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, with additional support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Dr. Weiss has reported nonfinancial support from Mocacare and nonfinancial support from iHealth Labs during the conduct of the study. He also is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, and owns stock and was formerly on the board of Virta.

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

The popular new weight-loss approach of eating within a restricted window of time during the day, allowing for an extended period of fasting – also known as intermittent fasting – does not result in greater weight loss, compared with nonrestricted meal timing, results from a randomized clinical trial show.

“I was very surprised by all of [the results],” senior author Ethan J. Weiss, MD, said in an interview.

“Part of the reason we did the study was because I had been doing time-restricted eating myself for years and even recommending it to friends and patients as an effective weight-loss tool,” said Dr. Weiss, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.

“But no matter how you slice it, prescription of time-restricted eating – at least this version –is not a very effective weight-loss strategy,” Dr. Weiss said.

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Dylan A. Lowe, PhD, also of the University of California, San Francisco, involved 116 participants who were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either three structured meals per day or time-restricted eating, with instructions to eat only between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and to completely abstain from eating at other times.

The participants were not given any specific instructions regarding caloric or macronutrient intake “so as to offer a simple, real-world recommendation to free-living individuals,” the authors wrote.

Although some prior research has shown improvements in measures such as glucose tolerance with time-restricted eating, studies showing weight loss with the approach, including one recently reported by Medscape Medical News, have been small and lacked control groups.

“To my knowledge this is the first randomized, controlled trial and definitely the biggest,” Dr. Weiss. “I think it is the most comprehensive dataset available in people, at least for this intervention.”
 

Participants used app to log details

At baseline, participants had a mean weight of 99.2 kg (approximately 219 lb). Their mean age was 46.5 years and 60.3% were men. They were drawn from anywhere in the United States and received study surveys through a custom mobile study application on the Eureka Research Platform. They were given a Bluetooth weight scale to use daily, which was connected with the app, and randomized to one of the two interventions. A subset of 50 participants living near San Francisco underwent in-person testing.

At the end of the 12 weeks, those in the time-restricted eating group (n = 59) did have a significant decrease in weight, compared with baseline (−0.94 kg; P = .01), while weight loss in the consistent-meal group (n = 57) was not significant (−0.68 kg; P = .07).

But importantly, the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of fasting insulin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or blood lipids within or between the time-restricted eating and consistent-meal group either. Nor were there any significant differences in resting metabolic rate.

Although participants did not self-report their caloric intake, the authors estimated that the differences were not significant using mathematical modeling developed at the National Institutes of Health.

Rates of adherence to the diets were 92.1% in the consistent-meal group versus 83.5% in the time-restricted group.
 

Not all diets are equal: Time-restricted eating group lost more lean mass

In a subset analysis, loss of lean mass was significantly greater in the time-restricted eating group, compared with the consistent-meals group, in terms of both appendicular lean mass (P = .009) and the appendicular lean mass index (P = .005).

In fact, as much as 65% of the weight lost (1.10 kg of the average 1.70 kg) in the time-restricted eating group consisted of lean mass, while much less was fat mass (0.51 kg).

“The proportion of lean mass loss in this study (approximately 65%) far exceeds the normal range of 20%-30%,” the authors wrote. “In addition, there was a highly significant between-group difference in appendicular lean mass.”

Appendicular lean mass correlates with nutritional and physical status, and its reduction can lead to weakness, disability, and impaired quality of life.

“This serves as a caution for patient populations at risk for sarcopenia because time-restricted eating could exacerbate muscle loss,” the authors asserted.

Furthermore, previous studies suggest that the loss of lean mass in such studies is positively linked with weight regain.

While a limitation of the work is that self-reported measures of energy or macronutrient or protein intake were not obtained, the authors speculated that the role of protein intake could be linked to the greater loss of lean mass.

“Given the loss of appendicular lean mass in participants in the time-restricted eating arm and previous reports of decreased protein consumption from time-restricted eating, it is possible that protein intake was altered by time-restricted eating in this cohort, and this clearly warrants future study,” they wrote.

Dr. Weiss said the findings underscore that not all weight loss in dieting is beneficial.

“Losing 1 kg of lean mass (is not equal) to a kilogram of fat,” he said. “Indeed, if one loses 0.65 kg of lean mass and only 0.35 kg of fat mass, that is an intervention I’d probably pass on.”
 

Time-restricted eating is popular, perhaps because it’s easy?

Time-restricted eating has gained popularity in recent years.

The approach “is attractive as a weight-loss option in that it does not require tedious and time-consuming methods such as calorie counting or adherence to complicated diets,” the authors noted. “Indeed, we found that self-reported adherence to the time-restricted eating schedule was high; however, in contrast to our hypothesis, there was no greater weight loss with time-restricted eating compared with the consistent meal timing.”

They explain that the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. window for eating was chosen because they thought people might find it easier culturally to skip breakfast than dinner, the more social meal.

However, an 8 p.m. cutoff is somewhat late given there is some suggestion that fasting several hours before bedtime is most beneficial, Dr. Weiss noted. So it may be worth examining different time windows.

“I am very intrigued about looking at early time-restricted eating – 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,” for example, he said. “It is on our list.”

Meanwhile, the study results support previous research showing no effect on weight outcomes in relation to skipping breakfast.

The study received funding from the UCSF cardiology division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, with additional support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Dr. Weiss has reported nonfinancial support from Mocacare and nonfinancial support from iHealth Labs during the conduct of the study. He also is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, and owns stock and was formerly on the board of Virta.

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