Clinician Reviews

Statin use may significantly lower the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with or without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), based on a meta-analysis and systematic review.

In more than 15,000 patients with IBD, statin use was associated with a 60% reduced risk of CRC, reported lead author Kevin N. Singh, MD, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, and colleagues.

“Statin use has been linked with a risk reduction for cancers including hepatocellular carcinoma, breast, gastric, pancreatic, and biliary tract cancers, but data supporting the use of statins for chemoprevention against CRC is conflicting,” Dr. Singh said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

He noted a 2014 meta-analysis by Lytras and colleagues that reported a 9% CRC risk reduction in statin users who did not have IBD. In patients with IBD, data are scarce, according to Dr. Singh.

To further explore the relationship between statin use and CRC in patients without IBD, the investigators analyzed data from 52 studies, including 8 randomized clinical trials, 17 cohort studies, and 27 case-control studies. Of the 11,459,306 patients involved, approximately 2 million used statins and roughly 9 million did not.

To evaluate the same relationship in patients with IBD, the investigators conducted a separate meta-analysis involving 15,342 patients from 5 observational studies, 1 of which was an unpublished abstract. In the 4 published studies, 1,161 patients used statins while 12,145 did not.

In the non-IBD population, statin use was associated with a 20% reduced risk of CRC (pooled odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.88; P less than .001). In patients with IBD, statin use was associated with a 60% CRC risk reduction (pooled OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.86, P = .019).

Dr. Singh noted “significant heterogeneity” in both analyses (I2 greater than 75), most prominently in the IBD populations, which he ascribed to “differences in demographic features, ethnic groups, and risk factors for CRC.”

While publication bias was absent from the non-IBD analysis, it was detected in the IBD portion of the study. Dr. Singh said that selection bias may also have been present in the IBD analysis, due to exclusive use of observational studies.

“Prospective trials are needed to confirm the risk reduction of CRC in the IBD population, including whether the effects of statins differ between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients,” Dr. Singh said.

Additional analyses are underway, he added, including one that will account for the potentially confounding effect of aspirin use.

According to David E. Kaplan, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, “The finding that statins are associated with reduced CRC in IBD provides additional support for the clinical importance of the antineoplastic effects of statins. This effect has been strongly observed in liver cancer, and is pending prospective validation.”

Dr. Kaplan also offered some mechanistic insight into why statins have an anticancer effect, pointing to “the centrality of cholesterol biosynthesis for development and/or progression of malignancy.”

The investigators and Dr. Kaplan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Statin use may significantly lower the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with or without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), based on a meta-analysis and systematic review.

In more than 15,000 patients with IBD, statin use was associated with a 60% reduced risk of CRC, reported lead author Kevin N. Singh, MD, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, and colleagues.

“Statin use has been linked with a risk reduction for cancers including hepatocellular carcinoma, breast, gastric, pancreatic, and biliary tract cancers, but data supporting the use of statins for chemoprevention against CRC is conflicting,” Dr. Singh said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

He noted a 2014 meta-analysis by Lytras and colleagues that reported a 9% CRC risk reduction in statin users who did not have IBD. In patients with IBD, data are scarce, according to Dr. Singh.

To further explore the relationship between statin use and CRC in patients without IBD, the investigators analyzed data from 52 studies, including 8 randomized clinical trials, 17 cohort studies, and 27 case-control studies. Of the 11,459,306 patients involved, approximately 2 million used statins and roughly 9 million did not.

To evaluate the same relationship in patients with IBD, the investigators conducted a separate meta-analysis involving 15,342 patients from 5 observational studies, 1 of which was an unpublished abstract. In the 4 published studies, 1,161 patients used statins while 12,145 did not.

In the non-IBD population, statin use was associated with a 20% reduced risk of CRC (pooled odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.88; P less than .001). In patients with IBD, statin use was associated with a 60% CRC risk reduction (pooled OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.86, P = .019).

Dr. Singh noted “significant heterogeneity” in both analyses (I2 greater than 75), most prominently in the IBD populations, which he ascribed to “differences in demographic features, ethnic groups, and risk factors for CRC.”

While publication bias was absent from the non-IBD analysis, it was detected in the IBD portion of the study. Dr. Singh said that selection bias may also have been present in the IBD analysis, due to exclusive use of observational studies.

“Prospective trials are needed to confirm the risk reduction of CRC in the IBD population, including whether the effects of statins differ between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients,” Dr. Singh said.

Additional analyses are underway, he added, including one that will account for the potentially confounding effect of aspirin use.

According to David E. Kaplan, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, “The finding that statins are associated with reduced CRC in IBD provides additional support for the clinical importance of the antineoplastic effects of statins. This effect has been strongly observed in liver cancer, and is pending prospective validation.”

Dr. Kaplan also offered some mechanistic insight into why statins have an anticancer effect, pointing to “the centrality of cholesterol biosynthesis for development and/or progression of malignancy.”

The investigators and Dr. Kaplan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Statin use may significantly lower the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with or without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), based on a meta-analysis and systematic review.

In more than 15,000 patients with IBD, statin use was associated with a 60% reduced risk of CRC, reported lead author Kevin N. Singh, MD, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, and colleagues.

“Statin use has been linked with a risk reduction for cancers including hepatocellular carcinoma, breast, gastric, pancreatic, and biliary tract cancers, but data supporting the use of statins for chemoprevention against CRC is conflicting,” Dr. Singh said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

He noted a 2014 meta-analysis by Lytras and colleagues that reported a 9% CRC risk reduction in statin users who did not have IBD. In patients with IBD, data are scarce, according to Dr. Singh.

To further explore the relationship between statin use and CRC in patients without IBD, the investigators analyzed data from 52 studies, including 8 randomized clinical trials, 17 cohort studies, and 27 case-control studies. Of the 11,459,306 patients involved, approximately 2 million used statins and roughly 9 million did not.

To evaluate the same relationship in patients with IBD, the investigators conducted a separate meta-analysis involving 15,342 patients from 5 observational studies, 1 of which was an unpublished abstract. In the 4 published studies, 1,161 patients used statins while 12,145 did not.

In the non-IBD population, statin use was associated with a 20% reduced risk of CRC (pooled odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.88; P less than .001). In patients with IBD, statin use was associated with a 60% CRC risk reduction (pooled OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.86, P = .019).

Dr. Singh noted “significant heterogeneity” in both analyses (I2 greater than 75), most prominently in the IBD populations, which he ascribed to “differences in demographic features, ethnic groups, and risk factors for CRC.”

While publication bias was absent from the non-IBD analysis, it was detected in the IBD portion of the study. Dr. Singh said that selection bias may also have been present in the IBD analysis, due to exclusive use of observational studies.

“Prospective trials are needed to confirm the risk reduction of CRC in the IBD population, including whether the effects of statins differ between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients,” Dr. Singh said.

Additional analyses are underway, he added, including one that will account for the potentially confounding effect of aspirin use.

According to David E. Kaplan, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, “The finding that statins are associated with reduced CRC in IBD provides additional support for the clinical importance of the antineoplastic effects of statins. This effect has been strongly observed in liver cancer, and is pending prospective validation.”

Dr. Kaplan also offered some mechanistic insight into why statins have an anticancer effect, pointing to “the centrality of cholesterol biosynthesis for development and/or progression of malignancy.”

The investigators and Dr. Kaplan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Clinicians have numerous pharmacotherapy options available to treat ADHD in their toolbox. How do you know which formulation or combination of therapies is right for your patient with ADHD?

According to Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD, the answer depends on onset and duration of the medication and how that fits in to the patient’s current needs.

The most common treatment for ADHD, stimulants, are amphetamine-based and methylphenidate-based compounds known for improving core symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity and are “probably associated with the most efficacy relative to the other interventions,” Dr. Strawn, associate professor of psychiatry, pediatrics, and clinical pharmacology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said at Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education. “But what I think is also really important for us to remember as clinicians is that they improve adherence, social interactions, [and] academic efficiency as well as accuracy.”

Other ADHD pharmacotherapy options include nonstimulant norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (NRIs) like atomoxetine, and alpha-2 agonists like the extended-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine. All are Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of ADHD, and the FDA has approved some combination alpha-2 agonists and stimulants treatments for ADHD as well.

When making decisions about formulations for ADHD pharmacotherapy, clinicians should think about whether the patient has issues swallowing tablets or capsules. Tablets, capsules, and chewable tablets may be appropriate for patients who can easily take these medications, while patients who have problems with swallowing pills may benefit from dissolvable tablets, solutions, and transdermal applications. Each of these options “have differences in terms of absorption, also differences in terms of intestinal transit time in younger children, as well as patients perhaps with irritable bowel, as well as other conditions that may affect absorption,” Dr. Strawn said. Different formulations have unique considerations: liquid formulations have the benefit of making precise adjustments, sublingual formulations may have quick absorption and onset, and oral dissolvable tablets can improve treatment adherence and reduce misuse of medication.

Formulations can be available as a delayed release, extended release, pulsatile release, targeted release, or a combination of immediate, delayed, and/or extended release. “Ultimately, what this gives rise to is differences in onset of action and duration, as well as differences in the elimination profile of the medication,” he said.

Transdermal formulations “avoid the first-pass metabolism, which may reduce side effects or increase efficacy,” but patients converting from an oral formulation may require reducing the dose. “It’s always important to remember, for example, with something like Daytrana, the transdermal methylphenidate formulation, if we’re converting a patient from an oral methylphenidate, we roughly need to use half the dose for the transdermal formulation,” Dr. Strawn explained. Transdermal formulations can carry benefits of steady plasma concentrations and longer duration of action but may cause skin irritation or accidentally be removed. “It’s really important they’re properly disposed of because oftentimes they do contain some active medication within the residual matrix.”
 

Methylphenidate, mixed amphetamine salt–based preparations

Modified-release formulations include matrix- or reservoir-based formulations and are most importantly differentiated from other formulations by their gastrointestinal (GI) transit time and the permeation through the GI membrane. When considering what formulation to choose, “it’s important to consider that, even with an ‘extended release formulation,’ all of these medications have some percentage that is immediately released, and that percentage varies considerably from formulation to formulation,” Dr. Strawn said.

He noted that brand names are sometimes used for formulations “because it’s often very difficult for us as clinicians and even for pharmacists to distinguish between these various formulations of the medication, which often have the same ‘extended’ or ‘delayed release’ modifying term within the name of the medication.”

Examples of medications that have greater immediate release include Metadate CD (30%), Aptensio XR (37%), long-acting methylphenidate (50%), dexmethylphenidate extended-release (50%), and Mixed Salts amphetamine extended release (50%). Formulations with a less immediate release include Quillivant solution or Quillichew chewable tablets (20%), Dyanaval XR solution (20%), OROS methylphenidate (22%), Daytrana that begins within 1 or 2 hours and lasts for 9 hours, or lisdexamfetamine that begins within 1 hour and lasts for 9 hours.

Depending on a patient’s needs, one particular formulation may work better than another. Dexmethylphenidate (Focalin XR) has a 50% immediate release and 50% extended release formulation, which “may be really important for a high school student who has first period precalculus followed by second period human geography,” Dr. Strawn said, while “a patient who may have first period study hall and second period art” may benefit from OROS methylphenidate.

Clinicians should also consider the effect of counterclockwise hysteresis when adding a short-acting stimulant later in the day. “There seems to be something really magic about having that ascending concentration time curve that, when we’re on the descending loop of that concentration time curve, we really seem to get a dramatic waning of the effect of the medication, even though technically the concentration is within the ‘therapeutic range,’ ” Dr. Strawn said. “With counterclockwise hysteresis, we see that the effect increases with time for a given concentration of the medication.”
 

Combining ADHD pharmacotherapies

For children and adolescents with ADHD, atomoxetine is a nonstimulant, FDA-approved treatment option. “It seems to be effective not just in terms of total ADHD symptoms, but also in terms of hyperactive and impulsive symptoms as well as the inattentive symptoms,” Dr. Strawn said.

Pharmacogenetics can be a guide for selecting an atomoxetine for a patient with ADHD, he noted. “What I think is most relevant here is the way in which pharmacogenetics can actually help guide our dosing, which then optimizes tolerability, potentially efficacy of atomoxetine,” he said. “Atomoxetine is pretty extensively metabolized by [CYP]2D6, and it’s one of about 300 medications that actually has specific labeling from the FDA on dosing based on genotype. It recommends a slower titration, as well as a lower target dose of atomoxetine in individuals who are P450 2D6 poor metabolizers relative to those patients who are ultra-rapid or normal metabolizers.”

Atomoxetine is most often combined with methylphenidate and has some evidence of benefit in children or adolescents who do not have an adequate response to stimulants alone. When combining stimulants with the alpha-2 agonists guanfacine or clonidine, “there are some improvements in terms of the combination treatment relative to the monotherapy,” Dr. Strawn said. He also emphasized that patients taking guanfacine immediate release tend to have better absorption and faster onset, compared with the extended release formulation. “This is something that potentially is very important when we think beyond steady state and we think about the practical use of this medication,” he said.
 

Baseline history is important

Overall, taking a baseline history of a patient with ADHD is “critically important” before starting them on stimulants, Dr. Strawn said. “Specifically, I would recommend documenting a negative history of syncope, family history of sudden cardiac death, as well as the lack of any known history of structural cardiac abnormalities,” he said. “Without a consultation with the cardiologist specifically around this question, I’m very, very, very hesitant – as in I don’t – use stimulants in patients who have histories of aortic stenosis, Wolff-Parkinson-White, as well as arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia.”

Although patients with ADHD were typically followed with routine hemodynamic monitoring every 3 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, some clinicians see their patients with ADHD less frequently if they have been stabilized on a stimulant. “It is important to check not just with the patient, but also with parents and teachers as we’re adjusting medication dose and trying to optimize the treatment regimen, particularly in young children. In adults, it may also be very helpful to talk with spouses,” Dr. Strawn said.

Dr. Strawn also called attention to a recommendation to perform a routine electrocardiogram (EKG) in patients with ADHD who might receive stimulants. “At present, there is no recommendation to obtain a routine screening EKG in these patients, provided that we have an absence of those other red flags on the history,” he said. “Certainly, I would consider it in situations where I do have persistent tachycardia or hypertension, or there are other treatment-emergent symptoms, although really in many of these situations, I’m actually speaking on the phone with my pediatric or adult cardiology colleagues.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Strawn reported receiving research support from Allergan, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Neuronetics, and Otsuka; serving as a consultant and receiving material support from Myriad; receiving royalties from Springer Publishing; and serving as a consultant for Intra-Cellular Therapies. In addition, he has been on the speaker’s bureau for the Neuroscience Education Institute and CMEology, and Medscape.

Clinicians have numerous pharmacotherapy options available to treat ADHD in their toolbox. How do you know which formulation or combination of therapies is right for your patient with ADHD?

According to Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD, the answer depends on onset and duration of the medication and how that fits in to the patient’s current needs.

The most common treatment for ADHD, stimulants, are amphetamine-based and methylphenidate-based compounds known for improving core symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity and are “probably associated with the most efficacy relative to the other interventions,” Dr. Strawn, associate professor of psychiatry, pediatrics, and clinical pharmacology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said at Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education. “But what I think is also really important for us to remember as clinicians is that they improve adherence, social interactions, [and] academic efficiency as well as accuracy.”

Other ADHD pharmacotherapy options include nonstimulant norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (NRIs) like atomoxetine, and alpha-2 agonists like the extended-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine. All are Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of ADHD, and the FDA has approved some combination alpha-2 agonists and stimulants treatments for ADHD as well.

When making decisions about formulations for ADHD pharmacotherapy, clinicians should think about whether the patient has issues swallowing tablets or capsules. Tablets, capsules, and chewable tablets may be appropriate for patients who can easily take these medications, while patients who have problems with swallowing pills may benefit from dissolvable tablets, solutions, and transdermal applications. Each of these options “have differences in terms of absorption, also differences in terms of intestinal transit time in younger children, as well as patients perhaps with irritable bowel, as well as other conditions that may affect absorption,” Dr. Strawn said. Different formulations have unique considerations: liquid formulations have the benefit of making precise adjustments, sublingual formulations may have quick absorption and onset, and oral dissolvable tablets can improve treatment adherence and reduce misuse of medication.

Formulations can be available as a delayed release, extended release, pulsatile release, targeted release, or a combination of immediate, delayed, and/or extended release. “Ultimately, what this gives rise to is differences in onset of action and duration, as well as differences in the elimination profile of the medication,” he said.

Transdermal formulations “avoid the first-pass metabolism, which may reduce side effects or increase efficacy,” but patients converting from an oral formulation may require reducing the dose. “It’s always important to remember, for example, with something like Daytrana, the transdermal methylphenidate formulation, if we’re converting a patient from an oral methylphenidate, we roughly need to use half the dose for the transdermal formulation,” Dr. Strawn explained. Transdermal formulations can carry benefits of steady plasma concentrations and longer duration of action but may cause skin irritation or accidentally be removed. “It’s really important they’re properly disposed of because oftentimes they do contain some active medication within the residual matrix.”
 

Methylphenidate, mixed amphetamine salt–based preparations

Modified-release formulations include matrix- or reservoir-based formulations and are most importantly differentiated from other formulations by their gastrointestinal (GI) transit time and the permeation through the GI membrane. When considering what formulation to choose, “it’s important to consider that, even with an ‘extended release formulation,’ all of these medications have some percentage that is immediately released, and that percentage varies considerably from formulation to formulation,” Dr. Strawn said.

He noted that brand names are sometimes used for formulations “because it’s often very difficult for us as clinicians and even for pharmacists to distinguish between these various formulations of the medication, which often have the same ‘extended’ or ‘delayed release’ modifying term within the name of the medication.”

Examples of medications that have greater immediate release include Metadate CD (30%), Aptensio XR (37%), long-acting methylphenidate (50%), dexmethylphenidate extended-release (50%), and Mixed Salts amphetamine extended release (50%). Formulations with a less immediate release include Quillivant solution or Quillichew chewable tablets (20%), Dyanaval XR solution (20%), OROS methylphenidate (22%), Daytrana that begins within 1 or 2 hours and lasts for 9 hours, or lisdexamfetamine that begins within 1 hour and lasts for 9 hours.

Depending on a patient’s needs, one particular formulation may work better than another. Dexmethylphenidate (Focalin XR) has a 50% immediate release and 50% extended release formulation, which “may be really important for a high school student who has first period precalculus followed by second period human geography,” Dr. Strawn said, while “a patient who may have first period study hall and second period art” may benefit from OROS methylphenidate.

Clinicians should also consider the effect of counterclockwise hysteresis when adding a short-acting stimulant later in the day. “There seems to be something really magic about having that ascending concentration time curve that, when we’re on the descending loop of that concentration time curve, we really seem to get a dramatic waning of the effect of the medication, even though technically the concentration is within the ‘therapeutic range,’ ” Dr. Strawn said. “With counterclockwise hysteresis, we see that the effect increases with time for a given concentration of the medication.”
 

Combining ADHD pharmacotherapies

For children and adolescents with ADHD, atomoxetine is a nonstimulant, FDA-approved treatment option. “It seems to be effective not just in terms of total ADHD symptoms, but also in terms of hyperactive and impulsive symptoms as well as the inattentive symptoms,” Dr. Strawn said.

Pharmacogenetics can be a guide for selecting an atomoxetine for a patient with ADHD, he noted. “What I think is most relevant here is the way in which pharmacogenetics can actually help guide our dosing, which then optimizes tolerability, potentially efficacy of atomoxetine,” he said. “Atomoxetine is pretty extensively metabolized by [CYP]2D6, and it’s one of about 300 medications that actually has specific labeling from the FDA on dosing based on genotype. It recommends a slower titration, as well as a lower target dose of atomoxetine in individuals who are P450 2D6 poor metabolizers relative to those patients who are ultra-rapid or normal metabolizers.”

Atomoxetine is most often combined with methylphenidate and has some evidence of benefit in children or adolescents who do not have an adequate response to stimulants alone. When combining stimulants with the alpha-2 agonists guanfacine or clonidine, “there are some improvements in terms of the combination treatment relative to the monotherapy,” Dr. Strawn said. He also emphasized that patients taking guanfacine immediate release tend to have better absorption and faster onset, compared with the extended release formulation. “This is something that potentially is very important when we think beyond steady state and we think about the practical use of this medication,” he said.
 

Baseline history is important

Overall, taking a baseline history of a patient with ADHD is “critically important” before starting them on stimulants, Dr. Strawn said. “Specifically, I would recommend documenting a negative history of syncope, family history of sudden cardiac death, as well as the lack of any known history of structural cardiac abnormalities,” he said. “Without a consultation with the cardiologist specifically around this question, I’m very, very, very hesitant – as in I don’t – use stimulants in patients who have histories of aortic stenosis, Wolff-Parkinson-White, as well as arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia.”

Although patients with ADHD were typically followed with routine hemodynamic monitoring every 3 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, some clinicians see their patients with ADHD less frequently if they have been stabilized on a stimulant. “It is important to check not just with the patient, but also with parents and teachers as we’re adjusting medication dose and trying to optimize the treatment regimen, particularly in young children. In adults, it may also be very helpful to talk with spouses,” Dr. Strawn said.

Dr. Strawn also called attention to a recommendation to perform a routine electrocardiogram (EKG) in patients with ADHD who might receive stimulants. “At present, there is no recommendation to obtain a routine screening EKG in these patients, provided that we have an absence of those other red flags on the history,” he said. “Certainly, I would consider it in situations where I do have persistent tachycardia or hypertension, or there are other treatment-emergent symptoms, although really in many of these situations, I’m actually speaking on the phone with my pediatric or adult cardiology colleagues.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Strawn reported receiving research support from Allergan, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Neuronetics, and Otsuka; serving as a consultant and receiving material support from Myriad; receiving royalties from Springer Publishing; and serving as a consultant for Intra-Cellular Therapies. In addition, he has been on the speaker’s bureau for the Neuroscience Education Institute and CMEology, and Medscape.

Clinicians have numerous pharmacotherapy options available to treat ADHD in their toolbox. How do you know which formulation or combination of therapies is right for your patient with ADHD?

According to Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD, the answer depends on onset and duration of the medication and how that fits in to the patient’s current needs.

The most common treatment for ADHD, stimulants, are amphetamine-based and methylphenidate-based compounds known for improving core symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity and are “probably associated with the most efficacy relative to the other interventions,” Dr. Strawn, associate professor of psychiatry, pediatrics, and clinical pharmacology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said at Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education. “But what I think is also really important for us to remember as clinicians is that they improve adherence, social interactions, [and] academic efficiency as well as accuracy.”

Other ADHD pharmacotherapy options include nonstimulant norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (NRIs) like atomoxetine, and alpha-2 agonists like the extended-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine. All are Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of ADHD, and the FDA has approved some combination alpha-2 agonists and stimulants treatments for ADHD as well.

When making decisions about formulations for ADHD pharmacotherapy, clinicians should think about whether the patient has issues swallowing tablets or capsules. Tablets, capsules, and chewable tablets may be appropriate for patients who can easily take these medications, while patients who have problems with swallowing pills may benefit from dissolvable tablets, solutions, and transdermal applications. Each of these options “have differences in terms of absorption, also differences in terms of intestinal transit time in younger children, as well as patients perhaps with irritable bowel, as well as other conditions that may affect absorption,” Dr. Strawn said. Different formulations have unique considerations: liquid formulations have the benefit of making precise adjustments, sublingual formulations may have quick absorption and onset, and oral dissolvable tablets can improve treatment adherence and reduce misuse of medication.

Formulations can be available as a delayed release, extended release, pulsatile release, targeted release, or a combination of immediate, delayed, and/or extended release. “Ultimately, what this gives rise to is differences in onset of action and duration, as well as differences in the elimination profile of the medication,” he said.

Transdermal formulations “avoid the first-pass metabolism, which may reduce side effects or increase efficacy,” but patients converting from an oral formulation may require reducing the dose. “It’s always important to remember, for example, with something like Daytrana, the transdermal methylphenidate formulation, if we’re converting a patient from an oral methylphenidate, we roughly need to use half the dose for the transdermal formulation,” Dr. Strawn explained. Transdermal formulations can carry benefits of steady plasma concentrations and longer duration of action but may cause skin irritation or accidentally be removed. “It’s really important they’re properly disposed of because oftentimes they do contain some active medication within the residual matrix.”
 

Methylphenidate, mixed amphetamine salt–based preparations

Modified-release formulations include matrix- or reservoir-based formulations and are most importantly differentiated from other formulations by their gastrointestinal (GI) transit time and the permeation through the GI membrane. When considering what formulation to choose, “it’s important to consider that, even with an ‘extended release formulation,’ all of these medications have some percentage that is immediately released, and that percentage varies considerably from formulation to formulation,” Dr. Strawn said.

He noted that brand names are sometimes used for formulations “because it’s often very difficult for us as clinicians and even for pharmacists to distinguish between these various formulations of the medication, which often have the same ‘extended’ or ‘delayed release’ modifying term within the name of the medication.”

Examples of medications that have greater immediate release include Metadate CD (30%), Aptensio XR (37%), long-acting methylphenidate (50%), dexmethylphenidate extended-release (50%), and Mixed Salts amphetamine extended release (50%). Formulations with a less immediate release include Quillivant solution or Quillichew chewable tablets (20%), Dyanaval XR solution (20%), OROS methylphenidate (22%), Daytrana that begins within 1 or 2 hours and lasts for 9 hours, or lisdexamfetamine that begins within 1 hour and lasts for 9 hours.

Depending on a patient’s needs, one particular formulation may work better than another. Dexmethylphenidate (Focalin XR) has a 50% immediate release and 50% extended release formulation, which “may be really important for a high school student who has first period precalculus followed by second period human geography,” Dr. Strawn said, while “a patient who may have first period study hall and second period art” may benefit from OROS methylphenidate.

Clinicians should also consider the effect of counterclockwise hysteresis when adding a short-acting stimulant later in the day. “There seems to be something really magic about having that ascending concentration time curve that, when we’re on the descending loop of that concentration time curve, we really seem to get a dramatic waning of the effect of the medication, even though technically the concentration is within the ‘therapeutic range,’ ” Dr. Strawn said. “With counterclockwise hysteresis, we see that the effect increases with time for a given concentration of the medication.”
 

Combining ADHD pharmacotherapies

For children and adolescents with ADHD, atomoxetine is a nonstimulant, FDA-approved treatment option. “It seems to be effective not just in terms of total ADHD symptoms, but also in terms of hyperactive and impulsive symptoms as well as the inattentive symptoms,” Dr. Strawn said.

Pharmacogenetics can be a guide for selecting an atomoxetine for a patient with ADHD, he noted. “What I think is most relevant here is the way in which pharmacogenetics can actually help guide our dosing, which then optimizes tolerability, potentially efficacy of atomoxetine,” he said. “Atomoxetine is pretty extensively metabolized by [CYP]2D6, and it’s one of about 300 medications that actually has specific labeling from the FDA on dosing based on genotype. It recommends a slower titration, as well as a lower target dose of atomoxetine in individuals who are P450 2D6 poor metabolizers relative to those patients who are ultra-rapid or normal metabolizers.”

Atomoxetine is most often combined with methylphenidate and has some evidence of benefit in children or adolescents who do not have an adequate response to stimulants alone. When combining stimulants with the alpha-2 agonists guanfacine or clonidine, “there are some improvements in terms of the combination treatment relative to the monotherapy,” Dr. Strawn said. He also emphasized that patients taking guanfacine immediate release tend to have better absorption and faster onset, compared with the extended release formulation. “This is something that potentially is very important when we think beyond steady state and we think about the practical use of this medication,” he said.
 

Baseline history is important

Overall, taking a baseline history of a patient with ADHD is “critically important” before starting them on stimulants, Dr. Strawn said. “Specifically, I would recommend documenting a negative history of syncope, family history of sudden cardiac death, as well as the lack of any known history of structural cardiac abnormalities,” he said. “Without a consultation with the cardiologist specifically around this question, I’m very, very, very hesitant – as in I don’t – use stimulants in patients who have histories of aortic stenosis, Wolff-Parkinson-White, as well as arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia.”

Although patients with ADHD were typically followed with routine hemodynamic monitoring every 3 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, some clinicians see their patients with ADHD less frequently if they have been stabilized on a stimulant. “It is important to check not just with the patient, but also with parents and teachers as we’re adjusting medication dose and trying to optimize the treatment regimen, particularly in young children. In adults, it may also be very helpful to talk with spouses,” Dr. Strawn said.

Dr. Strawn also called attention to a recommendation to perform a routine electrocardiogram (EKG) in patients with ADHD who might receive stimulants. “At present, there is no recommendation to obtain a routine screening EKG in these patients, provided that we have an absence of those other red flags on the history,” he said. “Certainly, I would consider it in situations where I do have persistent tachycardia or hypertension, or there are other treatment-emergent symptoms, although really in many of these situations, I’m actually speaking on the phone with my pediatric or adult cardiology colleagues.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Strawn reported receiving research support from Allergan, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, Neuronetics, and Otsuka; serving as a consultant and receiving material support from Myriad; receiving royalties from Springer Publishing; and serving as a consultant for Intra-Cellular Therapies. In addition, he has been on the speaker’s bureau for the Neuroscience Education Institute and CMEology, and Medscape.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

[email protected]

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

[email protected]

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

[email protected]

Women who experience irregular and long menstrual cycles in adolescence and adulthood are more likely to die before the age of 70 years than women with regular or short cycles, reported Yi-Xin Wang, PhD, of Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and associates. This is particularly true in the presence of cardiovascular disease and a history of smoking.

In a peer-reviewed observational study of 79,505 premenopausal women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II, the researchers sought to determine whether a life-long history of irregular or long menstrual cycles was associated with premature death. Patients averaged a mean age of 37.7 years and had no history of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes at enrollment.

Although irregular and long menstrual cycles are common and frequently linked with an increased risk of major chronic diseases – such as ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and mental health problems – in women of reproductive age, actual evidence linking irregular or long menstrual cycles with mortality is scant, the researchers noted in the BMJ.

During the study, participants checked in at ages 14-17 years, 18-22 years, and 29-46 years to report the usual length and regularity of their menstrual cycles. Over 24 years of follow-up, a total of 1,975 premature deaths were noted, including 894 from cancer and 172 from cardiovascular disease.
 

Irregular cycles appear to bring risks

After considering other possible factors of influence, including age, weight, lifestyle, and family medical history, Dr. Wang and associates noted higher rates of mortality among those consistently reporting irregular cycles than women in the same age ranges with very regular cycles. Specifically, women aged 18-22 years and 29-46 years with cycles of 40 days or more were at greater risk of dying prematurely than were those in the same age ranges with cycles of 26-31 days.

Cardiovascular disease was a stronger predictor of death than cancer or other causes. Also included in the higher-risk group were those who currently smoked.

Among women reporting very regular cycles and women reporting always irregular cycles, mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.05 and 1.23 at ages 14-17 years, 1.00 and 1.37 at ages 18-22 years, and 1.00 and 1.68 at ages 29-46 years, respectively.

The study also found that women reporting irregular cycles or no periods had a higher body mass indexes (28.2 vs. 25.0 kg/m²); were more likely to have conditions including hypertension (13.2% vs. 6.2%), high blood cholesterol levels (23.9% vs. 14.9%), hirsutism (8.4%

vs. 1.8%), or endometriosis (5.9% vs. 4.5%); and uterine fibroids (10.0% vs. 7.8%); and a higher prevalence of family history of diabetes (19.4% vs. 15.8%).

Dr. Wang and associates also observed – using multivariable Cox models – a greater risk of premature death across all categories and all age ranges in women with decreasing menstrual cycle regularity. In models that were fully adjusted, cycle lengths that were 40 days or more or too irregular to estimate from ages 18-22 and 29-46 expressed hazard ratios for premature death at the time of follow-up of 1.34 and 1.40, compared with women in the same age ranges reporting cycle lengths of 26-31 days.

Of note, Dr. Wang and colleagues unexpectedly discovered an increased risk of premature death in women who had used contraceptives between 14-17 years. They suggested that a greater number of women self-reporting contraceptive use in adolescence may have been using contraceptives to manage symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and other conditions such as endometriosis.

Relying on the potential inaccuracy inherent in patient recall of their menstrual cycle characteristics, and the likelihood for other unmeasured factors, may have affected study results. Study strengths included the significant number of participants who had a high follow-up rate over many years, and the availability of menstrual cycle data at three different points across the reproductive lifespan.

Because the mechanisms underlying these associations are likely related to the disrupted hormonal environment, the study results “emphasize the need for primary care providers to include menstrual cycle characteristics throughout the reproductive life span as additional vital signs in assessing women’s general health status,” Dr. Wang and colleagues cautioned.
 

Expert suggests a probable underlying link

“Irregular menstrual cycles in women have long been known to be associated with significant morbidities, including the leading causes of mortality worldwide such as cardiovascular disease and cancer,” Reshef Tal, MD, PhD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology & reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The findings of this large study that irregular menstrual cycles are associated with premature death, most strongly from cardiovascular causes, are therefore not surprising.”

Dr. Tal acknowledged that one probable underlying link is PCOS, which is recognized as the most common hormonal disorder affecting women of reproductive age. The irregular periods that characterize PCOS are tied to a number of metabolic risk factors, including obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, which increase the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer of the uterus.

“The study did not have information on patients’ pelvic ultrasound findings and male hormone levels, which would have helped to establish PCOS diagnosis. However, women in this study who had irregular cycles tended to have more hirsutism, high cholesterol, hypertension as well as higher BMI, suggesting that PCOS is at least partly responsible for the observed association with cardiovascular disease. Interestingly, the association between irregular cycles and early mortality was independent of BMI, indicating that mechanisms other than metabolic factors may also play a role,” observed Dr. Tal, who was asked to comment on the study.

“Irregular periods are a symptom and not a disease, so it is important to identify underlying metabolic risk factors. Furthermore, physicians are advised to counsel patients experiencing menstrual irregularity, [to advise them to] maintain a healthy lifestyle and be alert to health changes,” Dr. Tal suggested.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tal said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Chavarro J et al. BMJ. 2020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3464.

Women who experience irregular and long menstrual cycles in adolescence and adulthood are more likely to die before the age of 70 years than women with regular or short cycles, reported Yi-Xin Wang, PhD, of Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and associates. This is particularly true in the presence of cardiovascular disease and a history of smoking.

In a peer-reviewed observational study of 79,505 premenopausal women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II, the researchers sought to determine whether a life-long history of irregular or long menstrual cycles was associated with premature death. Patients averaged a mean age of 37.7 years and had no history of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes at enrollment.

Although irregular and long menstrual cycles are common and frequently linked with an increased risk of major chronic diseases – such as ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and mental health problems – in women of reproductive age, actual evidence linking irregular or long menstrual cycles with mortality is scant, the researchers noted in the BMJ.

During the study, participants checked in at ages 14-17 years, 18-22 years, and 29-46 years to report the usual length and regularity of their menstrual cycles. Over 24 years of follow-up, a total of 1,975 premature deaths were noted, including 894 from cancer and 172 from cardiovascular disease.
 

Irregular cycles appear to bring risks

After considering other possible factors of influence, including age, weight, lifestyle, and family medical history, Dr. Wang and associates noted higher rates of mortality among those consistently reporting irregular cycles than women in the same age ranges with very regular cycles. Specifically, women aged 18-22 years and 29-46 years with cycles of 40 days or more were at greater risk of dying prematurely than were those in the same age ranges with cycles of 26-31 days.

Cardiovascular disease was a stronger predictor of death than cancer or other causes. Also included in the higher-risk group were those who currently smoked.

Among women reporting very regular cycles and women reporting always irregular cycles, mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.05 and 1.23 at ages 14-17 years, 1.00 and 1.37 at ages 18-22 years, and 1.00 and 1.68 at ages 29-46 years, respectively.

The study also found that women reporting irregular cycles or no periods had a higher body mass indexes (28.2 vs. 25.0 kg/m²); were more likely to have conditions including hypertension (13.2% vs. 6.2%), high blood cholesterol levels (23.9% vs. 14.9%), hirsutism (8.4%

vs. 1.8%), or endometriosis (5.9% vs. 4.5%); and uterine fibroids (10.0% vs. 7.8%); and a higher prevalence of family history of diabetes (19.4% vs. 15.8%).

Dr. Wang and associates also observed – using multivariable Cox models – a greater risk of premature death across all categories and all age ranges in women with decreasing menstrual cycle regularity. In models that were fully adjusted, cycle lengths that were 40 days or more or too irregular to estimate from ages 18-22 and 29-46 expressed hazard ratios for premature death at the time of follow-up of 1.34 and 1.40, compared with women in the same age ranges reporting cycle lengths of 26-31 days.

Of note, Dr. Wang and colleagues unexpectedly discovered an increased risk of premature death in women who had used contraceptives between 14-17 years. They suggested that a greater number of women self-reporting contraceptive use in adolescence may have been using contraceptives to manage symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and other conditions such as endometriosis.

Relying on the potential inaccuracy inherent in patient recall of their menstrual cycle characteristics, and the likelihood for other unmeasured factors, may have affected study results. Study strengths included the significant number of participants who had a high follow-up rate over many years, and the availability of menstrual cycle data at three different points across the reproductive lifespan.

Because the mechanisms underlying these associations are likely related to the disrupted hormonal environment, the study results “emphasize the need for primary care providers to include menstrual cycle characteristics throughout the reproductive life span as additional vital signs in assessing women’s general health status,” Dr. Wang and colleagues cautioned.
 

Expert suggests a probable underlying link

“Irregular menstrual cycles in women have long been known to be associated with significant morbidities, including the leading causes of mortality worldwide such as cardiovascular disease and cancer,” Reshef Tal, MD, PhD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology & reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The findings of this large study that irregular menstrual cycles are associated with premature death, most strongly from cardiovascular causes, are therefore not surprising.”

Dr. Tal acknowledged that one probable underlying link is PCOS, which is recognized as the most common hormonal disorder affecting women of reproductive age. The irregular periods that characterize PCOS are tied to a number of metabolic risk factors, including obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, which increase the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer of the uterus.

“The study did not have information on patients’ pelvic ultrasound findings and male hormone levels, which would have helped to establish PCOS diagnosis. However, women in this study who had irregular cycles tended to have more hirsutism, high cholesterol, hypertension as well as higher BMI, suggesting that PCOS is at least partly responsible for the observed association with cardiovascular disease. Interestingly, the association between irregular cycles and early mortality was independent of BMI, indicating that mechanisms other than metabolic factors may also play a role,” observed Dr. Tal, who was asked to comment on the study.

“Irregular periods are a symptom and not a disease, so it is important to identify underlying metabolic risk factors. Furthermore, physicians are advised to counsel patients experiencing menstrual irregularity, [to advise them to] maintain a healthy lifestyle and be alert to health changes,” Dr. Tal suggested.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tal said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Chavarro J et al. BMJ. 2020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3464.

Women who experience irregular and long menstrual cycles in adolescence and adulthood are more likely to die before the age of 70 years than women with regular or short cycles, reported Yi-Xin Wang, PhD, of Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and associates. This is particularly true in the presence of cardiovascular disease and a history of smoking.

In a peer-reviewed observational study of 79,505 premenopausal women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II, the researchers sought to determine whether a life-long history of irregular or long menstrual cycles was associated with premature death. Patients averaged a mean age of 37.7 years and had no history of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes at enrollment.

Although irregular and long menstrual cycles are common and frequently linked with an increased risk of major chronic diseases – such as ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and mental health problems – in women of reproductive age, actual evidence linking irregular or long menstrual cycles with mortality is scant, the researchers noted in the BMJ.

During the study, participants checked in at ages 14-17 years, 18-22 years, and 29-46 years to report the usual length and regularity of their menstrual cycles. Over 24 years of follow-up, a total of 1,975 premature deaths were noted, including 894 from cancer and 172 from cardiovascular disease.
 

Irregular cycles appear to bring risks

After considering other possible factors of influence, including age, weight, lifestyle, and family medical history, Dr. Wang and associates noted higher rates of mortality among those consistently reporting irregular cycles than women in the same age ranges with very regular cycles. Specifically, women aged 18-22 years and 29-46 years with cycles of 40 days or more were at greater risk of dying prematurely than were those in the same age ranges with cycles of 26-31 days.

Cardiovascular disease was a stronger predictor of death than cancer or other causes. Also included in the higher-risk group were those who currently smoked.

Among women reporting very regular cycles and women reporting always irregular cycles, mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.05 and 1.23 at ages 14-17 years, 1.00 and 1.37 at ages 18-22 years, and 1.00 and 1.68 at ages 29-46 years, respectively.

The study also found that women reporting irregular cycles or no periods had a higher body mass indexes (28.2 vs. 25.0 kg/m²); were more likely to have conditions including hypertension (13.2% vs. 6.2%), high blood cholesterol levels (23.9% vs. 14.9%), hirsutism (8.4%

vs. 1.8%), or endometriosis (5.9% vs. 4.5%); and uterine fibroids (10.0% vs. 7.8%); and a higher prevalence of family history of diabetes (19.4% vs. 15.8%).

Dr. Wang and associates also observed – using multivariable Cox models – a greater risk of premature death across all categories and all age ranges in women with decreasing menstrual cycle regularity. In models that were fully adjusted, cycle lengths that were 40 days or more or too irregular to estimate from ages 18-22 and 29-46 expressed hazard ratios for premature death at the time of follow-up of 1.34 and 1.40, compared with women in the same age ranges reporting cycle lengths of 26-31 days.

Of note, Dr. Wang and colleagues unexpectedly discovered an increased risk of premature death in women who had used contraceptives between 14-17 years. They suggested that a greater number of women self-reporting contraceptive use in adolescence may have been using contraceptives to manage symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and other conditions such as endometriosis.

Relying on the potential inaccuracy inherent in patient recall of their menstrual cycle characteristics, and the likelihood for other unmeasured factors, may have affected study results. Study strengths included the significant number of participants who had a high follow-up rate over many years, and the availability of menstrual cycle data at three different points across the reproductive lifespan.

Because the mechanisms underlying these associations are likely related to the disrupted hormonal environment, the study results “emphasize the need for primary care providers to include menstrual cycle characteristics throughout the reproductive life span as additional vital signs in assessing women’s general health status,” Dr. Wang and colleagues cautioned.
 

Expert suggests a probable underlying link

“Irregular menstrual cycles in women have long been known to be associated with significant morbidities, including the leading causes of mortality worldwide such as cardiovascular disease and cancer,” Reshef Tal, MD, PhD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology & reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The findings of this large study that irregular menstrual cycles are associated with premature death, most strongly from cardiovascular causes, are therefore not surprising.”

Dr. Tal acknowledged that one probable underlying link is PCOS, which is recognized as the most common hormonal disorder affecting women of reproductive age. The irregular periods that characterize PCOS are tied to a number of metabolic risk factors, including obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, which increase the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer of the uterus.

“The study did not have information on patients’ pelvic ultrasound findings and male hormone levels, which would have helped to establish PCOS diagnosis. However, women in this study who had irregular cycles tended to have more hirsutism, high cholesterol, hypertension as well as higher BMI, suggesting that PCOS is at least partly responsible for the observed association with cardiovascular disease. Interestingly, the association between irregular cycles and early mortality was independent of BMI, indicating that mechanisms other than metabolic factors may also play a role,” observed Dr. Tal, who was asked to comment on the study.

“Irregular periods are a symptom and not a disease, so it is important to identify underlying metabolic risk factors. Furthermore, physicians are advised to counsel patients experiencing menstrual irregularity, [to advise them to] maintain a healthy lifestyle and be alert to health changes,” Dr. Tal suggested.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tal said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Chavarro J et al. BMJ. 2020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3464.

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The Diagnosis: Relapsing Polychondritis 

Due to suspicion of relapsing polychondritis (RP), we also performed an audiometric evaluation, which demonstrated bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Echocardiography highlighted mild to moderate mitralic and tricuspidal insufficiency without hemodynamic impairment (ejection fraction, 50%). Corticosteroid therapy was started (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/d). After 7 days of treatment, inflammation was remarkably reduced, and the patient no longer reported pain. 

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare noninfective condition characterized by focal inflammatory destruction of ear cartilage, followed by fibroblastic regeneration. It often is associated with ocular inflammation, including conjunctivitis, scleritis, and episcleritis; cochlear or vestibular lesions; and seronegative nonerosive inflammatory arthritis.¹ Clinical examination of the affected area shows swelling, redness, and tenderness of the ear, which could lead to a misdiagnosis of cellulitis. A typical and useful differentiating sign is the sparing of the noncartilaginous parts of the ear lobule. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, the destructive process can cause thinning of the cartilage, leading to deformities of the external ear.  

The differential diagnosis includes erysipelas, which presents as a rapidly appearing inflammatory patch with sharply defined borders, accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy or skin streaking as well as fever. Sweet syndrome usually presents with tender erythematous or violaceous skin papules, plaques, or nodules, frequently with a pseudovesicular appearance; patients generally present with a classic fever and peripheral neutrophilia.² The localized cutaneous form of leishmaniasis usually appears with a papule that generally develops into an ulcerative nodular lesion. Our patient did not have a history of exposure to topical substances that could point to photocontact dermatitis.  

Dion et al³ proposed 3 distinct clinical phenotypes of RP: (1) patients with concomitant myelodysplastic syndrome or other hematologic malignancy (<10% of patients), mostly older men with a poor prognosis; (2) patients with tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 25% of patients); and (3) patients who do not have hematologic or tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 65% of patients) with a good prognosis.  

Two sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The criteria from McAdam et al⁴ required the presence of 3 or more of the following clinical features: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation (eg, conjunctivitis, keratitis, scleritis/episcleritis, uveitis), respiratory tract chondritis (laryngeal and/or tracheal cartilages), and cochlear and/or vestibular dysfunction (eg, neurosensory hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo). These criteria were modified by Damiani and Levine.⁵ According to the latter, all patients were required to have one of the following: at least 4 of the McAdam et al⁴ diagnostic criteria; 1 or more of the clinical findings included in the McAdam et al⁴ criteria with histologic features suggestive for RP; or chondritis at 2 or more separate anatomic locations with a response to glucocorticoids and/or dapsone.  

No laboratory findings are specific for RP, and nonspecific indicators of inflammation--elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein--often are present. 
The cause of RP is unknown. Familial clustering has not been observed. Terao et al⁶ found that HLA-DRB1*1602, -DQB1*0502, and -B*6701, in linkage disequilibrium with each other, are associated with susceptibility to RP. 

There is no universal consensus about treatment, but a course of steroids leads to the resolution of the acute phase. Maintenance treatment can include dapsone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine.^7,8 Some studies have described the successful use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab.^9,10  

The Diagnosis: Relapsing Polychondritis 

Due to suspicion of relapsing polychondritis (RP), we also performed an audiometric evaluation, which demonstrated bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Echocardiography highlighted mild to moderate mitralic and tricuspidal insufficiency without hemodynamic impairment (ejection fraction, 50%). Corticosteroid therapy was started (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/d). After 7 days of treatment, inflammation was remarkably reduced, and the patient no longer reported pain. 

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare noninfective condition characterized by focal inflammatory destruction of ear cartilage, followed by fibroblastic regeneration. It often is associated with ocular inflammation, including conjunctivitis, scleritis, and episcleritis; cochlear or vestibular lesions; and seronegative nonerosive inflammatory arthritis.¹ Clinical examination of the affected area shows swelling, redness, and tenderness of the ear, which could lead to a misdiagnosis of cellulitis. A typical and useful differentiating sign is the sparing of the noncartilaginous parts of the ear lobule. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, the destructive process can cause thinning of the cartilage, leading to deformities of the external ear.  

The differential diagnosis includes erysipelas, which presents as a rapidly appearing inflammatory patch with sharply defined borders, accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy or skin streaking as well as fever. Sweet syndrome usually presents with tender erythematous or violaceous skin papules, plaques, or nodules, frequently with a pseudovesicular appearance; patients generally present with a classic fever and peripheral neutrophilia.² The localized cutaneous form of leishmaniasis usually appears with a papule that generally develops into an ulcerative nodular lesion. Our patient did not have a history of exposure to topical substances that could point to photocontact dermatitis.  

Dion et al³ proposed 3 distinct clinical phenotypes of RP: (1) patients with concomitant myelodysplastic syndrome or other hematologic malignancy (<10% of patients), mostly older men with a poor prognosis; (2) patients with tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 25% of patients); and (3) patients who do not have hematologic or tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 65% of patients) with a good prognosis.  

Two sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The criteria from McAdam et al⁴ required the presence of 3 or more of the following clinical features: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation (eg, conjunctivitis, keratitis, scleritis/episcleritis, uveitis), respiratory tract chondritis (laryngeal and/or tracheal cartilages), and cochlear and/or vestibular dysfunction (eg, neurosensory hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo). These criteria were modified by Damiani and Levine.⁵ According to the latter, all patients were required to have one of the following: at least 4 of the McAdam et al⁴ diagnostic criteria; 1 or more of the clinical findings included in the McAdam et al⁴ criteria with histologic features suggestive for RP; or chondritis at 2 or more separate anatomic locations with a response to glucocorticoids and/or dapsone.  

No laboratory findings are specific for RP, and nonspecific indicators of inflammation--elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein--often are present. 
The cause of RP is unknown. Familial clustering has not been observed. Terao et al⁶ found that HLA-DRB1*1602, -DQB1*0502, and -B*6701, in linkage disequilibrium with each other, are associated with susceptibility to RP. 

There is no universal consensus about treatment, but a course of steroids leads to the resolution of the acute phase. Maintenance treatment can include dapsone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine.^7,8 Some studies have described the successful use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab.^9,10  

The Diagnosis: Relapsing Polychondritis 

Due to suspicion of relapsing polychondritis (RP), we also performed an audiometric evaluation, which demonstrated bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Echocardiography highlighted mild to moderate mitralic and tricuspidal insufficiency without hemodynamic impairment (ejection fraction, 50%). Corticosteroid therapy was started (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/d). After 7 days of treatment, inflammation was remarkably reduced, and the patient no longer reported pain. 

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare noninfective condition characterized by focal inflammatory destruction of ear cartilage, followed by fibroblastic regeneration. It often is associated with ocular inflammation, including conjunctivitis, scleritis, and episcleritis; cochlear or vestibular lesions; and seronegative nonerosive inflammatory arthritis.¹ Clinical examination of the affected area shows swelling, redness, and tenderness of the ear, which could lead to a misdiagnosis of cellulitis. A typical and useful differentiating sign is the sparing of the noncartilaginous parts of the ear lobule. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, the destructive process can cause thinning of the cartilage, leading to deformities of the external ear.  

The differential diagnosis includes erysipelas, which presents as a rapidly appearing inflammatory patch with sharply defined borders, accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy or skin streaking as well as fever. Sweet syndrome usually presents with tender erythematous or violaceous skin papules, plaques, or nodules, frequently with a pseudovesicular appearance; patients generally present with a classic fever and peripheral neutrophilia.² The localized cutaneous form of leishmaniasis usually appears with a papule that generally develops into an ulcerative nodular lesion. Our patient did not have a history of exposure to topical substances that could point to photocontact dermatitis.  

Dion et al³ proposed 3 distinct clinical phenotypes of RP: (1) patients with concomitant myelodysplastic syndrome or other hematologic malignancy (<10% of patients), mostly older men with a poor prognosis; (2) patients with tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 25% of patients); and (3) patients who do not have hematologic or tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 65% of patients) with a good prognosis.  

Two sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The criteria from McAdam et al⁴ required the presence of 3 or more of the following clinical features: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation (eg, conjunctivitis, keratitis, scleritis/episcleritis, uveitis), respiratory tract chondritis (laryngeal and/or tracheal cartilages), and cochlear and/or vestibular dysfunction (eg, neurosensory hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo). These criteria were modified by Damiani and Levine.⁵ According to the latter, all patients were required to have one of the following: at least 4 of the McAdam et al⁴ diagnostic criteria; 1 or more of the clinical findings included in the McAdam et al⁴ criteria with histologic features suggestive for RP; or chondritis at 2 or more separate anatomic locations with a response to glucocorticoids and/or dapsone.  

No laboratory findings are specific for RP, and nonspecific indicators of inflammation--elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein--often are present. 
The cause of RP is unknown. Familial clustering has not been observed. Terao et al⁶ found that HLA-DRB1*1602, -DQB1*0502, and -B*6701, in linkage disequilibrium with each other, are associated with susceptibility to RP. 

There is no universal consensus about treatment, but a course of steroids leads to the resolution of the acute phase. Maintenance treatment can include dapsone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine.^7,8 Some studies have described the successful use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab.^9,10  

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) analyses of thermography that is combined with diagnostic software demonstrate “the efficacy of the tool for breast cancer screening,” concludes an observational, comparative study from India published online Oct. 1 in JCO Global Oncology, a publication of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Siva Teja Kakileti of Niramai Health Analytix, Koramangala, Bangalore, India, and colleagues said that the product, Thermalytix, is potentially a good fit for low- and middle-income countries because it is portable and provides automated quantitative analysis of thermal images – and thus can be conducted by technicians with “minimal training.”

Conventional thermography involves manual interpretation of complex thermal images, which “often results in erroneous results owing to subjectivity,” said the study authors.

That manual interpretation of thermal images might involve looking at 200 color shades, which is “high cognitive overload for the thermographer,” explained Mr. Kakileti in an interview.

However, an American mammography expert who was approached for comment dismissed thermography – even with the new twist of software-aided diagnostic scoring by Thermalytix – as wholly inappropriate for the detection of early breast cancer, owing to inherent limitations.

“Thermal imaging of any type has no value in finding early breast cancer,” Daniel Kopans, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview. He said that thermal imaging only detects heat on the skin and perhaps a few millimeters beneath the skin and thus misses deeper cancers, the heat from which is carried away by the vascular system.

The new study included 470 women who presented for breast screening at two centers in Bangalore, India. A total of 238 women had symptoms such as breast lump, nipple discharge, skin changes, or breast pain; the remaining 232 women were asymptomatic.

All participants underwent a Thermalytix test and one or more standard-of-care tests for breast cancer screening (such as mammography, ultrasonography, biopsy, fine-needle aspiration, or elastography). A total of 78 women, or 16.6% of the group overall, were diagnosed with a malignancy. For the overall group of 470 women, Thermalytix had a sensitivity of 91.02% (symptomatic, 89.85%; asymptomatic,100%) and a specificity of 82.39% (symptomatic, 69.04%; asymptomatic, 92.41%) in detection of breast malignancy. Thermalytix showed an overall AUC of 0.90, with an AUC of 0.82 for symptomatic and 0.98 for asymptomatic women.

The study authors characterized both the sensitivity and AUC as “high.”

The results from the study, which the authors characterized as preliminary, encouraged the study sponsor, Niramai, to start planning a large-scale, multicountry trial.

But Dr. Kopans, who serves as a consultant to DART, which produces digital breast tomosynthesis units in China, suggested that this research will be fruitless. “Thermal imaging seems to raise its head every few years since it is passive, but it does not work and is a waste of money,” Dr. Kopans reiterated.

“Its use can be dangerous by dissuading women from being screened with mammography, which has been proven to save lives,” he stressed.
 

Thermalytix compared with mammography

Investigators also compared screening results in the subset of 242 women who underwent both Thermalytix and mammography. Results showed that Thermalytix had a higher sensitivity than did mammography (91.23% vs. 85.96%), but mammography had a higher specificity than Thermalytix did (94.05% vs. 68.65%).

In the asymptomatic group who underwent both tests (n = 95), four cancers were detected, and Thermalytix demonstrated superior sensitivity than mammography (100% vs. 50%), Mr. Kakileti and colleagues state.
 

Thermalytix evaluates vascularity variations too

In the subset of 228 women who did not undergo mammography (owing to dense breasts, younger age, or other reasons), Thermalytix detected tumors in all but 3 of 21 patients who went on to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The authors state that, because their artificial intelligence–based analysis uses vascularity, as well as temperature variations on the skin, to complement hot-spot detection, it is able to detect small lesions.

In the current study, 24 malignant tumors were less than 2 cm in diameter, and Thermalytix was able to identify 17 of the tumors as positive, for a 71% sensitivity rate for T1 tumors. This compared with a 68% sensitivity rate for mammography for detecting the same T1 tumors. Thermalytix also showed promising results in women younger than 40 years, for whom screening mammography is not usually recommended. The automated test picked up all 11 tumors eventually diagnosed in this younger cohort.

“Thermalytix is a portable, noninvasive, radiation-free test that has shown promising results in this preliminary study,” the investigators wrote, “[and] it can be an affordable and scalable method of screening in remote areas,” they added.

“We believe that Thermalytix ... is poised to be a promising modality for breast cancer screening,” Mr. Kakileti and colleagues summarized.
 

The FDA warns about thermography in place of mammography

The US Food and Drug Administration fairly recently warned against the use of thermography as an alternative to mammography for breast cancer screening or diagnosis, noting that it has received reports that facilities where thermography is offered often provide false information about the technology that can mislead patients into believing that it is either an alternative to or a better option than mammography.

Dr. Kopans says that other groups have invested in thermography research. “The Israelis spent millions working on a similar approach that didn’t work,” he commented.

The new software from Thermalytix, which is derived from artificial intelligence, is a “gimmick,” says the Boston radiologist. “If the basic information is not there, a computer cannot find it,” he stated, referring to what he believes are deeper-tissue tumors that are inaccessible to heat-detecting technology.

Mr. Kakileti is an employee of Nirami Health Analytix and owns stock and has filed patents with the company. Other investigators are also employed by the same company or receive research and other funding or have patents filed by the company as well. Dr. Kopans serves as a consultant to DART, which produces digital breast tomosynthesis units in China.
 

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

Sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) analyses of thermography that is combined with diagnostic software demonstrate “the efficacy of the tool for breast cancer screening,” concludes an observational, comparative study from India published online Oct. 1 in JCO Global Oncology, a publication of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Siva Teja Kakileti of Niramai Health Analytix, Koramangala, Bangalore, India, and colleagues said that the product, Thermalytix, is potentially a good fit for low- and middle-income countries because it is portable and provides automated quantitative analysis of thermal images – and thus can be conducted by technicians with “minimal training.”

Conventional thermography involves manual interpretation of complex thermal images, which “often results in erroneous results owing to subjectivity,” said the study authors.

That manual interpretation of thermal images might involve looking at 200 color shades, which is “high cognitive overload for the thermographer,” explained Mr. Kakileti in an interview.

However, an American mammography expert who was approached for comment dismissed thermography – even with the new twist of software-aided diagnostic scoring by Thermalytix – as wholly inappropriate for the detection of early breast cancer, owing to inherent limitations.

“Thermal imaging of any type has no value in finding early breast cancer,” Daniel Kopans, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview. He said that thermal imaging only detects heat on the skin and perhaps a few millimeters beneath the skin and thus misses deeper cancers, the heat from which is carried away by the vascular system.

The new study included 470 women who presented for breast screening at two centers in Bangalore, India. A total of 238 women had symptoms such as breast lump, nipple discharge, skin changes, or breast pain; the remaining 232 women were asymptomatic.

All participants underwent a Thermalytix test and one or more standard-of-care tests for breast cancer screening (such as mammography, ultrasonography, biopsy, fine-needle aspiration, or elastography). A total of 78 women, or 16.6% of the group overall, were diagnosed with a malignancy. For the overall group of 470 women, Thermalytix had a sensitivity of 91.02% (symptomatic, 89.85%; asymptomatic,100%) and a specificity of 82.39% (symptomatic, 69.04%; asymptomatic, 92.41%) in detection of breast malignancy. Thermalytix showed an overall AUC of 0.90, with an AUC of 0.82 for symptomatic and 0.98 for asymptomatic women.

The study authors characterized both the sensitivity and AUC as “high.”

The results from the study, which the authors characterized as preliminary, encouraged the study sponsor, Niramai, to start planning a large-scale, multicountry trial.

But Dr. Kopans, who serves as a consultant to DART, which produces digital breast tomosynthesis units in China, suggested that this research will be fruitless. “Thermal imaging seems to raise its head every few years since it is passive, but it does not work and is a waste of money,” Dr. Kopans reiterated.

“Its use can be dangerous by dissuading women from being screened with mammography, which has been proven to save lives,” he stressed.
 

Thermalytix compared with mammography

Investigators also compared screening results in the subset of 242 women who underwent both Thermalytix and mammography. Results showed that Thermalytix had a higher sensitivity than did mammography (91.23% vs. 85.96%), but mammography had a higher specificity than Thermalytix did (94.05% vs. 68.65%).

In the asymptomatic group who underwent both tests (n = 95), four cancers were detected, and Thermalytix demonstrated superior sensitivity than mammography (100% vs. 50%), Mr. Kakileti and colleagues state.
 

Thermalytix evaluates vascularity variations too

In the subset of 228 women who did not undergo mammography (owing to dense breasts, younger age, or other reasons), Thermalytix detected tumors in all but 3 of 21 patients who went on to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The authors state that, because their artificial intelligence–based analysis uses vascularity, as well as temperature variations on the skin, to complement hot-spot detection, it is able to detect small lesions.

In the current study, 24 malignant tumors were less than 2 cm in diameter, and Thermalytix was able to identify 17 of the tumors as positive, for a 71% sensitivity rate for T1 tumors. This compared with a 68% sensitivity rate for mammography for detecting the same T1 tumors. Thermalytix also showed promising results in women younger than 40 years, for whom screening mammography is not usually recommended. The automated test picked up all 11 tumors eventually diagnosed in this younger cohort.

“Thermalytix is a portable, noninvasive, radiation-free test that has shown promising results in this preliminary study,” the investigators wrote, “[and] it can be an affordable and scalable method of screening in remote areas,” they added.

“We believe that Thermalytix ... is poised to be a promising modality for breast cancer screening,” Mr. Kakileti and colleagues summarized.
 

The FDA warns about thermography in place of mammography

The US Food and Drug Administration fairly recently warned against the use of thermography as an alternative to mammography for breast cancer screening or diagnosis, noting that it has received reports that facilities where thermography is offered often provide false information about the technology that can mislead patients into believing that it is either an alternative to or a better option than mammography.

Dr. Kopans says that other groups have invested in thermography research. “The Israelis spent millions working on a similar approach that didn’t work,” he commented.

The new software from Thermalytix, which is derived from artificial intelligence, is a “gimmick,” says the Boston radiologist. “If the basic information is not there, a computer cannot find it,” he stated, referring to what he believes are deeper-tissue tumors that are inaccessible to heat-detecting technology.

Mr. Kakileti is an employee of Nirami Health Analytix and owns stock and has filed patents with the company. Other investigators are also employed by the same company or receive research and other funding or have patents filed by the company as well. Dr. Kopans serves as a consultant to DART, which produces digital breast tomosynthesis units in China.
 

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

Sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) analyses of thermography that is combined with diagnostic software demonstrate “the efficacy of the tool for breast cancer screening,” concludes an observational, comparative study from India published online Oct. 1 in JCO Global Oncology, a publication of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Siva Teja Kakileti of Niramai Health Analytix, Koramangala, Bangalore, India, and colleagues said that the product, Thermalytix, is potentially a good fit for low- and middle-income countries because it is portable and provides automated quantitative analysis of thermal images – and thus can be conducted by technicians with “minimal training.”

Conventional thermography involves manual interpretation of complex thermal images, which “often results in erroneous results owing to subjectivity,” said the study authors.

That manual interpretation of thermal images might involve looking at 200 color shades, which is “high cognitive overload for the thermographer,” explained Mr. Kakileti in an interview.

However, an American mammography expert who was approached for comment dismissed thermography – even with the new twist of software-aided diagnostic scoring by Thermalytix – as wholly inappropriate for the detection of early breast cancer, owing to inherent limitations.

“Thermal imaging of any type has no value in finding early breast cancer,” Daniel Kopans, MD, of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview. He said that thermal imaging only detects heat on the skin and perhaps a few millimeters beneath the skin and thus misses deeper cancers, the heat from which is carried away by the vascular system.

The new study included 470 women who presented for breast screening at two centers in Bangalore, India. A total of 238 women had symptoms such as breast lump, nipple discharge, skin changes, or breast pain; the remaining 232 women were asymptomatic.

All participants underwent a Thermalytix test and one or more standard-of-care tests for breast cancer screening (such as mammography, ultrasonography, biopsy, fine-needle aspiration, or elastography). A total of 78 women, or 16.6% of the group overall, were diagnosed with a malignancy. For the overall group of 470 women, Thermalytix had a sensitivity of 91.02% (symptomatic, 89.85%; asymptomatic,100%) and a specificity of 82.39% (symptomatic, 69.04%; asymptomatic, 92.41%) in detection of breast malignancy. Thermalytix showed an overall AUC of 0.90, with an AUC of 0.82 for symptomatic and 0.98 for asymptomatic women.

The study authors characterized both the sensitivity and AUC as “high.”

The results from the study, which the authors characterized as preliminary, encouraged the study sponsor, Niramai, to start planning a large-scale, multicountry trial.

But Dr. Kopans, who serves as a consultant to DART, which produces digital breast tomosynthesis units in China, suggested that this research will be fruitless. “Thermal imaging seems to raise its head every few years since it is passive, but it does not work and is a waste of money,” Dr. Kopans reiterated.

“Its use can be dangerous by dissuading women from being screened with mammography, which has been proven to save lives,” he stressed.
 

Thermalytix compared with mammography

Investigators also compared screening results in the subset of 242 women who underwent both Thermalytix and mammography. Results showed that Thermalytix had a higher sensitivity than did mammography (91.23% vs. 85.96%), but mammography had a higher specificity than Thermalytix did (94.05% vs. 68.65%).

In the asymptomatic group who underwent both tests (n = 95), four cancers were detected, and Thermalytix demonstrated superior sensitivity than mammography (100% vs. 50%), Mr. Kakileti and colleagues state.
 

Thermalytix evaluates vascularity variations too

In the subset of 228 women who did not undergo mammography (owing to dense breasts, younger age, or other reasons), Thermalytix detected tumors in all but 3 of 21 patients who went on to be diagnosed with breast cancer. The authors state that, because their artificial intelligence–based analysis uses vascularity, as well as temperature variations on the skin, to complement hot-spot detection, it is able to detect small lesions.

In the current study, 24 malignant tumors were less than 2 cm in diameter, and Thermalytix was able to identify 17 of the tumors as positive, for a 71% sensitivity rate for T1 tumors. This compared with a 68% sensitivity rate for mammography for detecting the same T1 tumors. Thermalytix also showed promising results in women younger than 40 years, for whom screening mammography is not usually recommended. The automated test picked up all 11 tumors eventually diagnosed in this younger cohort.

“Thermalytix is a portable, noninvasive, radiation-free test that has shown promising results in this preliminary study,” the investigators wrote, “[and] it can be an affordable and scalable method of screening in remote areas,” they added.

“We believe that Thermalytix ... is poised to be a promising modality for breast cancer screening,” Mr. Kakileti and colleagues summarized.
 

The FDA warns about thermography in place of mammography

The US Food and Drug Administration fairly recently warned against the use of thermography as an alternative to mammography for breast cancer screening or diagnosis, noting that it has received reports that facilities where thermography is offered often provide false information about the technology that can mislead patients into believing that it is either an alternative to or a better option than mammography.

Dr. Kopans says that other groups have invested in thermography research. “The Israelis spent millions working on a similar approach that didn’t work,” he commented.

The new software from Thermalytix, which is derived from artificial intelligence, is a “gimmick,” says the Boston radiologist. “If the basic information is not there, a computer cannot find it,” he stated, referring to what he believes are deeper-tissue tumors that are inaccessible to heat-detecting technology.

Mr. Kakileti is an employee of Nirami Health Analytix and owns stock and has filed patents with the company. Other investigators are also employed by the same company or receive research and other funding or have patents filed by the company as well. Dr. Kopans serves as a consultant to DART, which produces digital breast tomosynthesis units in China.
 

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

COVID-19 cases are surging in rural places across the Mountain States and Midwest, and when it hits health care workers, ready reinforcements aren’t easy to find.

In Montana, pandemic-induced staffing shortages have shuttered a clinic in the state’s capital, led a northwestern regional hospital to ask employees exposed to COVID-19 to continue to work and emptied a health department 400 miles to the east.

“Just one more person out and we wouldn’t be able to keep the surgeries going,” said Dr. Shelly Harkins, MD, chief medical officer of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, a city of roughly 32,000 where cases continue to spread. “When the virus is just all around you, it’s almost impossible to not be deemed a contact at some point. One case can take out a whole team of people in a blink of an eye.”

In North Dakota, where cases per resident are growing faster than any other state, hospitals may once again curtail elective surgeries and possibly seek government aid to hire more nurses if the situation gets worse, North Dakota Hospital Association President Tim Blasl said.

“How long can we run at this rate with the workforce that we have?” Blasl said. “You can have all the licensed beds you want, but if you don’t have anybody to staff those beds, it doesn’t do you any good.”

The northern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Upper Midwest are seeing the highest surge of COVID-19 cases in the nation, as some residents have ignored recommendations for curtailing the virus, such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have recently ranked among the top 10 U.S. states in confirmed cases per 100,000 residents over a 7-day period, according to an analysis  by the New York Times.

Such coronavirus infections – and the quarantines that occur because of them – are exacerbating the health care worker shortage that existed in these states well before the pandemic. Unlike in the nation’s metropolitan hubs, these outbreaks are scattered across hundreds of miles. And even in these states’ biggest cities, the ranks of medical professionals are in short supply. Specialists and registered nurses are sometimes harder to track down than ventilators, N95 masks or hospital beds. Without enough care providers, patients may not be able to get the medical attention they need.

Hospitals have asked staffers to cover extra shifts and learn new skills. They have brought in temporary workers from other parts of the country and transferred some patients to less-crowded hospitals. But, at St. Peter’s Health, if the hospital’s one kidney doctor gets sick or is told to quarantine, Dr. Harkins doesn’t expect to find a backup.

“We make a point to not have excessive staff because we have an obligation to keep the cost of health care down for a community – we just don’t have a lot of slack in our rope,” Dr. Harkins said. “What we don’t account for is a mass exodus of staff for 14 days.”

Some hospitals are already at patient capacity or are nearly there. That’s not just because of the growing number of COVID-19 patients. Elective surgeries have resumed, and medical emergencies don’t pause for a pandemic.

Some Montana hospitals formed agreements with local affiliates early in the pandemic to share staff if one came up short. But now that the disease is spreading fast – and widely – the hope is that their needs don’t peak all at once.

Montana state officials keep a list of primarily in-state volunteer workers ready to travel to towns with shortages of contact tracers, nurses and more. But during a press conference on Oct. 15, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said the state had exhausted that database, and its nationwide request for National Guard medical staffing hadn’t brought in new workers.

“If you are a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, paramedic, EMT, CNA or contact tracer, and are able to join our workforce, please do consider joining our team,” Gov. Bullock said.

This month, Kalispell Regional Medical Center in northwestern Montana even stopped quarantining COVID-exposed staff who remain asymptomatic, a change allowed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for health facilities facing staffing shortages.

“That’s very telling for what staffing is going through right now,” said Andrea Lueck, a registered nurse at the center. “We’re so tight that employees are called off of quarantine.”

Financial pressure early in the pandemic led the hospital to furlough staff, but it had to bring most of them back to work because it needs those bodies more than ever. The regional hub is based in Flathead County, which has recorded the state’s second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases.

Mellody Sharpton, a hospital spokesperson, said hospital workers who are exposed to someone infected with the virus are tested within three to five days and monitored for symptoms. The hospital is also pulling in new workers, with 25 traveling health professionals on hand and another 25 temporary ones on the way.

But Ms. Sharpton said the best way to conserve the hospital’s workforce is to stop the disease surge in the community.

Earlier in the pandemic, Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown, a town of fewer than 6,000, experienced an exodus of part-time workers or those close to retirement who decided their jobs weren’t worth the risk. The facility recently secured two traveling workers, but both backed out because they couldn’t find housing. And, so far, roughly 40 of the hospital’s 322 employees have missed work for reasons connected to COVID-19.

“We’re at a critical staffing shortage and have been since the beginning of COVID,” said Joanie Slaybaugh, Central Montana Medical Center’s director of human resources. “We’re small enough, everybody feels an obligation to protect themselves and to protect each other. But it doesn’t take much to take out our staff.”

Roosevelt County, where roughly 11,000 live on the northeastern edge of Montana, had one of the nation’s highest rates of new cases as of Oct. 15. But by the end of the month, the county health department will lose half of its registered nurses as one person is about to retire and another was hired through a grant that’s ending. That leaves only one registered nurse aside from its director, Patty Presser. The health department already had to close earlier during the pandemic because of COVID exposure and not enough staffers to cover the gap. Now, if Ms. Presser can’t find nurse replacements in time, she hopes volunteers will step in, though she added they typically stay for only a few weeks.

“I need someone to do immunizations for my community, and you don’t become an immunization nurse in 14 days,” she said. “We don’t have the workforce here to deal with this virus, not even right now, and then I’m going to have my best two people go.”

Back in Helena, Dr. Harkins said St. Peter’s Health had to close a specialty outpatient clinic that treats chronic diseases for two weeks at the end of September because the entire staff had to quarantine.

Now the hospital is considering having doctors take turns spending a week working from home, so that if another wave of quarantines hits in the hospital, at least one untainted person can be brought back to work. But that won’t help for some specialties, like the hospital’s sole kidney doctor.

Every time Dr. Harkins’ phone rings, she said, she takes a breath and hopes it’s not another case that will force a whole division to close.

“Because I think immediately of the hundreds of people that need that service and won’t have it for 14 days,” she said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 cases are surging in rural places across the Mountain States and Midwest, and when it hits health care workers, ready reinforcements aren’t easy to find.

In Montana, pandemic-induced staffing shortages have shuttered a clinic in the state’s capital, led a northwestern regional hospital to ask employees exposed to COVID-19 to continue to work and emptied a health department 400 miles to the east.

“Just one more person out and we wouldn’t be able to keep the surgeries going,” said Dr. Shelly Harkins, MD, chief medical officer of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, a city of roughly 32,000 where cases continue to spread. “When the virus is just all around you, it’s almost impossible to not be deemed a contact at some point. One case can take out a whole team of people in a blink of an eye.”

In North Dakota, where cases per resident are growing faster than any other state, hospitals may once again curtail elective surgeries and possibly seek government aid to hire more nurses if the situation gets worse, North Dakota Hospital Association President Tim Blasl said.

“How long can we run at this rate with the workforce that we have?” Blasl said. “You can have all the licensed beds you want, but if you don’t have anybody to staff those beds, it doesn’t do you any good.”

The northern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Upper Midwest are seeing the highest surge of COVID-19 cases in the nation, as some residents have ignored recommendations for curtailing the virus, such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have recently ranked among the top 10 U.S. states in confirmed cases per 100,000 residents over a 7-day period, according to an analysis  by the New York Times.

Such coronavirus infections – and the quarantines that occur because of them – are exacerbating the health care worker shortage that existed in these states well before the pandemic. Unlike in the nation’s metropolitan hubs, these outbreaks are scattered across hundreds of miles. And even in these states’ biggest cities, the ranks of medical professionals are in short supply. Specialists and registered nurses are sometimes harder to track down than ventilators, N95 masks or hospital beds. Without enough care providers, patients may not be able to get the medical attention they need.

Hospitals have asked staffers to cover extra shifts and learn new skills. They have brought in temporary workers from other parts of the country and transferred some patients to less-crowded hospitals. But, at St. Peter’s Health, if the hospital’s one kidney doctor gets sick or is told to quarantine, Dr. Harkins doesn’t expect to find a backup.

“We make a point to not have excessive staff because we have an obligation to keep the cost of health care down for a community – we just don’t have a lot of slack in our rope,” Dr. Harkins said. “What we don’t account for is a mass exodus of staff for 14 days.”

Some hospitals are already at patient capacity or are nearly there. That’s not just because of the growing number of COVID-19 patients. Elective surgeries have resumed, and medical emergencies don’t pause for a pandemic.

Some Montana hospitals formed agreements with local affiliates early in the pandemic to share staff if one came up short. But now that the disease is spreading fast – and widely – the hope is that their needs don’t peak all at once.

Montana state officials keep a list of primarily in-state volunteer workers ready to travel to towns with shortages of contact tracers, nurses and more. But during a press conference on Oct. 15, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said the state had exhausted that database, and its nationwide request for National Guard medical staffing hadn’t brought in new workers.

“If you are a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, paramedic, EMT, CNA or contact tracer, and are able to join our workforce, please do consider joining our team,” Gov. Bullock said.

This month, Kalispell Regional Medical Center in northwestern Montana even stopped quarantining COVID-exposed staff who remain asymptomatic, a change allowed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for health facilities facing staffing shortages.

“That’s very telling for what staffing is going through right now,” said Andrea Lueck, a registered nurse at the center. “We’re so tight that employees are called off of quarantine.”

Financial pressure early in the pandemic led the hospital to furlough staff, but it had to bring most of them back to work because it needs those bodies more than ever. The regional hub is based in Flathead County, which has recorded the state’s second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases.

Mellody Sharpton, a hospital spokesperson, said hospital workers who are exposed to someone infected with the virus are tested within three to five days and monitored for symptoms. The hospital is also pulling in new workers, with 25 traveling health professionals on hand and another 25 temporary ones on the way.

But Ms. Sharpton said the best way to conserve the hospital’s workforce is to stop the disease surge in the community.

Earlier in the pandemic, Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown, a town of fewer than 6,000, experienced an exodus of part-time workers or those close to retirement who decided their jobs weren’t worth the risk. The facility recently secured two traveling workers, but both backed out because they couldn’t find housing. And, so far, roughly 40 of the hospital’s 322 employees have missed work for reasons connected to COVID-19.

“We’re at a critical staffing shortage and have been since the beginning of COVID,” said Joanie Slaybaugh, Central Montana Medical Center’s director of human resources. “We’re small enough, everybody feels an obligation to protect themselves and to protect each other. But it doesn’t take much to take out our staff.”

Roosevelt County, where roughly 11,000 live on the northeastern edge of Montana, had one of the nation’s highest rates of new cases as of Oct. 15. But by the end of the month, the county health department will lose half of its registered nurses as one person is about to retire and another was hired through a grant that’s ending. That leaves only one registered nurse aside from its director, Patty Presser. The health department already had to close earlier during the pandemic because of COVID exposure and not enough staffers to cover the gap. Now, if Ms. Presser can’t find nurse replacements in time, she hopes volunteers will step in, though she added they typically stay for only a few weeks.

“I need someone to do immunizations for my community, and you don’t become an immunization nurse in 14 days,” she said. “We don’t have the workforce here to deal with this virus, not even right now, and then I’m going to have my best two people go.”

Back in Helena, Dr. Harkins said St. Peter’s Health had to close a specialty outpatient clinic that treats chronic diseases for two weeks at the end of September because the entire staff had to quarantine.

Now the hospital is considering having doctors take turns spending a week working from home, so that if another wave of quarantines hits in the hospital, at least one untainted person can be brought back to work. But that won’t help for some specialties, like the hospital’s sole kidney doctor.

Every time Dr. Harkins’ phone rings, she said, she takes a breath and hopes it’s not another case that will force a whole division to close.

“Because I think immediately of the hundreds of people that need that service and won’t have it for 14 days,” she said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 cases are surging in rural places across the Mountain States and Midwest, and when it hits health care workers, ready reinforcements aren’t easy to find.

In Montana, pandemic-induced staffing shortages have shuttered a clinic in the state’s capital, led a northwestern regional hospital to ask employees exposed to COVID-19 to continue to work and emptied a health department 400 miles to the east.

“Just one more person out and we wouldn’t be able to keep the surgeries going,” said Dr. Shelly Harkins, MD, chief medical officer of St. Peter’s Health in Helena, a city of roughly 32,000 where cases continue to spread. “When the virus is just all around you, it’s almost impossible to not be deemed a contact at some point. One case can take out a whole team of people in a blink of an eye.”

In North Dakota, where cases per resident are growing faster than any other state, hospitals may once again curtail elective surgeries and possibly seek government aid to hire more nurses if the situation gets worse, North Dakota Hospital Association President Tim Blasl said.

“How long can we run at this rate with the workforce that we have?” Blasl said. “You can have all the licensed beds you want, but if you don’t have anybody to staff those beds, it doesn’t do you any good.”

The northern Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Upper Midwest are seeing the highest surge of COVID-19 cases in the nation, as some residents have ignored recommendations for curtailing the virus, such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have recently ranked among the top 10 U.S. states in confirmed cases per 100,000 residents over a 7-day period, according to an analysis  by the New York Times.

Such coronavirus infections – and the quarantines that occur because of them – are exacerbating the health care worker shortage that existed in these states well before the pandemic. Unlike in the nation’s metropolitan hubs, these outbreaks are scattered across hundreds of miles. And even in these states’ biggest cities, the ranks of medical professionals are in short supply. Specialists and registered nurses are sometimes harder to track down than ventilators, N95 masks or hospital beds. Without enough care providers, patients may not be able to get the medical attention they need.

Hospitals have asked staffers to cover extra shifts and learn new skills. They have brought in temporary workers from other parts of the country and transferred some patients to less-crowded hospitals. But, at St. Peter’s Health, if the hospital’s one kidney doctor gets sick or is told to quarantine, Dr. Harkins doesn’t expect to find a backup.

“We make a point to not have excessive staff because we have an obligation to keep the cost of health care down for a community – we just don’t have a lot of slack in our rope,” Dr. Harkins said. “What we don’t account for is a mass exodus of staff for 14 days.”

Some hospitals are already at patient capacity or are nearly there. That’s not just because of the growing number of COVID-19 patients. Elective surgeries have resumed, and medical emergencies don’t pause for a pandemic.

Some Montana hospitals formed agreements with local affiliates early in the pandemic to share staff if one came up short. But now that the disease is spreading fast – and widely – the hope is that their needs don’t peak all at once.

Montana state officials keep a list of primarily in-state volunteer workers ready to travel to towns with shortages of contact tracers, nurses and more. But during a press conference on Oct. 15, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said the state had exhausted that database, and its nationwide request for National Guard medical staffing hadn’t brought in new workers.

“If you are a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, paramedic, EMT, CNA or contact tracer, and are able to join our workforce, please do consider joining our team,” Gov. Bullock said.

This month, Kalispell Regional Medical Center in northwestern Montana even stopped quarantining COVID-exposed staff who remain asymptomatic, a change allowed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for health facilities facing staffing shortages.

“That’s very telling for what staffing is going through right now,” said Andrea Lueck, a registered nurse at the center. “We’re so tight that employees are called off of quarantine.”

Financial pressure early in the pandemic led the hospital to furlough staff, but it had to bring most of them back to work because it needs those bodies more than ever. The regional hub is based in Flathead County, which has recorded the state’s second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases.

Mellody Sharpton, a hospital spokesperson, said hospital workers who are exposed to someone infected with the virus are tested within three to five days and monitored for symptoms. The hospital is also pulling in new workers, with 25 traveling health professionals on hand and another 25 temporary ones on the way.

But Ms. Sharpton said the best way to conserve the hospital’s workforce is to stop the disease surge in the community.

Earlier in the pandemic, Central Montana Medical Center in Lewistown, a town of fewer than 6,000, experienced an exodus of part-time workers or those close to retirement who decided their jobs weren’t worth the risk. The facility recently secured two traveling workers, but both backed out because they couldn’t find housing. And, so far, roughly 40 of the hospital’s 322 employees have missed work for reasons connected to COVID-19.

“We’re at a critical staffing shortage and have been since the beginning of COVID,” said Joanie Slaybaugh, Central Montana Medical Center’s director of human resources. “We’re small enough, everybody feels an obligation to protect themselves and to protect each other. But it doesn’t take much to take out our staff.”

Roosevelt County, where roughly 11,000 live on the northeastern edge of Montana, had one of the nation’s highest rates of new cases as of Oct. 15. But by the end of the month, the county health department will lose half of its registered nurses as one person is about to retire and another was hired through a grant that’s ending. That leaves only one registered nurse aside from its director, Patty Presser. The health department already had to close earlier during the pandemic because of COVID exposure and not enough staffers to cover the gap. Now, if Ms. Presser can’t find nurse replacements in time, she hopes volunteers will step in, though she added they typically stay for only a few weeks.

“I need someone to do immunizations for my community, and you don’t become an immunization nurse in 14 days,” she said. “We don’t have the workforce here to deal with this virus, not even right now, and then I’m going to have my best two people go.”

Back in Helena, Dr. Harkins said St. Peter’s Health had to close a specialty outpatient clinic that treats chronic diseases for two weeks at the end of September because the entire staff had to quarantine.

Now the hospital is considering having doctors take turns spending a week working from home, so that if another wave of quarantines hits in the hospital, at least one untainted person can be brought back to work. But that won’t help for some specialties, like the hospital’s sole kidney doctor.

Every time Dr. Harkins’ phone rings, she said, she takes a breath and hopes it’s not another case that will force a whole division to close.

“Because I think immediately of the hundreds of people that need that service and won’t have it for 14 days,” she said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.